# Gay parenting



## ghotib (27 August 2015)

I'm starting a new thread for this because I think it's a separate issue from gay marriage.

My question is:  What's uniquely gay about gay parenting? 

Of all the mundane, hilarious, terrifying, joyous, tender, infuriating, proud, teary, embarrassing, ferocious, peaceful moments that go into raising a child, what part is the same for all gay parents - couples or single - and different from all hetero parents - couples or singles? 

I can't think of anything, which leads me to ask those who use the term:  What do you mean by "gay parenting?

TIA

Ghoti


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

ghotib said:


> I'm starting a new thread for this because I think it's a separate issue from gay marriage.
> 
> My question is:  What's uniquely gay about gay parenting?
> 
> ...




The process of parenting is probably the same for heterosexual or gay parents, but the effects on children being raised in an environment that will be most likely contradictory to their natural instincts could have effects later on in their lives.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The process of parenting is probably the same for heterosexual or gay parents, but the effects on children being raised in an environment that will be most likely contradictory to their natural instincts could have effects later on in their lives.




Could have?

So you're accepting the possibility there's no detrimental effect of same sex parents raising children?

Was just having lunch with a gay friend today who is raising 3 children with his partner.  The issues he has with getting the kids to eat their dinner, going to bed, doing their homework and a myriad other things sounded just the same as my straight friends.

I'd back a loving same sex couple to raise kids than quite a few of the straight couples that have children that weren't really by choice and don't particularly show any interest in them.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Could have?
> 
> 
> I'd back a loving same sex couple to raise kids than quite a few of the straight couples that have children that weren't really by choice and don't particularly show any interest in them.




So you see no possibility that some gays aren't really interested in the kids but just use them as a shield so they can say "we are just like anyone else".


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2015)

Ok I'll  buy in but will probably regret it.

I used to live around Caboolture (thankfully now reside in the more genteel western burbs) There I saw some of the most negative straight role models imaginable. And I'm not about to say gay couples always are better that the worst straight families either.

But as gays are increasingly accepted, its less of a problem for the kids. 

It all depends on the individuals, Biological pedantry aside.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

There are certainly a lot of straight couples around who should never have kids, but that doesn't mean that all gay couples are excellent parents (I know you didn't imply that, just stating facts).


----------



## scub (27 August 2015)

People are people , for better or worse, mostly better when it comes to children. 

Having children to look good  sounds like an oxymoron.

I think there are some caveats. 
Firstly the need  for a same sex model to be  an important  part of a child's life to help him or her more easily develop a better  sense of gender identity  
Secondly to be closely exposed to  respectful adult heterosexual relationships to learn the skills and roles involved in making such a relationship work.
Thirdly for a adolescent male with 2 mothers ,an alpha male presence , otherwise the boy is likely to take the role on with ,sometimes ,unfortunate out comes.
The same problems occur with single parent families

Fourthly pedophiles posing as gay couples could be a real risk to the whole process.  Witness recent cases where they have taken an overseas wife and then adopted. (Having members of the Gay community as part of the adoption process would probably minimise  such a risk)

Sorry , that is my lot ,I  used to work as GP for kids . Pontificating is a hazard of the qualifications


----------



## sydboy007 (27 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you see no possibility that some gays aren't really interested in the kids but just use them as a shield so they can say "we are just like anyone else".




Show me some evidence this is occurring.

How many straight parents have children because they feel that's what's expected?  How many get pressured by parents and grand parents to have children they don't really want?  May not be such an issue in the anglo world, but some asian and greek friends have felt quite a bit of pressure to pop out a bub or two, and received disapproval when they chose to be a childless married couple.

When all straight parents are perfect parents then I think you can start casting some stones.

Till then, judge the actual parents by how they treat their children than throwing a barrel of tar everywhere you can.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Show me some evidence this is occurring.




Do you deny that it does ?



> How many straight parents have children because they feel that's what's expected?  How many get pressured by parents and grand parents to have children they don't really want?




Quite a few I'm sure, and they should resist that pressure if they don't want the kids.



> When all straight parents are perfect parents then I think you can start casting some stones.




That's not a relevant argument because you imply that all gay parents are angels and I doubt that is true.



> Till then, judge the actual parents by how they treat their children than throwing a barrel of tar everywhere you can.




That's not relevant either because no matter how well gay parents treat their children, there is still something missing in their upbringing. Male AND female role models are necessary for children to live in THEIR world as heterosexuals (as most of them will be).

You say you had a happy upbringing, but you appear to want to deny to others the roles that both your mother and father played in your upbringing. I don't think anyone has the right to do that.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There are certainly a lot of straight couples around who should never have kids, but that doesn't mean that all gay couples are excellent parents (I know you didn't imply that, just stating facts).




it seems to me that there is a lot more important factors that make a good or bad parent than just sexuality.

I think there is so many more important factors, that sexuality should basically be ignored, unless it can be shown through a broad based study that children raised by gays suffer in some material way due to the sexuality of their parents that's more than any of the common flaws in hetero couples who can legally parent despite those obvious flaws.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> it seems to me that there is a lot more important factors that make a good or bad parent than just sexuality.
> 
> I think there is so many more important factors, that sexuality should basically be ignored, unless it can be shown through a broad based study that children raised by gays suffer in some material way due to the sexuality of their parents that's more than any of the common flaws in hetero couples who can legally parent despite those obvious flaws.




As pointed out by children, now adults who have been raised by gay parents, some feel that they have been denied a vital part of their childhood, ie either a mother or father.

If you are going to ignore that evidence, that does in fact make you biased and incapable of forming a rational opinion on the topic.

If you want to compare "good" gay couples with "bad" heterosexuals, that's like comparing a good orange with a bad apple, they are two different things. The comparison should be on an "all else equal" basis, and on that comparison heterosexual biological parents provide better balance and family bonding than gay parents where one or both partners are not the biological parents of the child.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> As pointed out by children, now adults who have been raised by gay parents, some feel that they have been denied a vital part of their childhood, ie either a mother or father.
> 
> If you are going to ignore that evidence, that does in fact make you biased and incapable of forming a rational opinion on the topic.
> 
> If you want to compare "good" gay couples with "bad" heterosexuals, that's like comparing a good orange with a bad apple, they are two different things. The comparison should be on an "all else equal" basis, and on that comparison heterosexual biological parents provide better balance and family bonding than gay parents where one or both partners are not the biological parents of the child.




So because some children feel they were denied of something, we should ban the whole concept?

Are you aware of any studies that show a large percentage of people raised in same sex marriages feel they were denied something? I mean you should atleast be able to prove that a majority feel this way before you are willing to ban something.

Secondly, how do you measure this against children of straight couples who feel they are denied something? Or had a poor outcome due to the situation their parents were in, you have admitted that there may be many cases where straight couples are far worse than gay couples, do we start banning couples from having children who are likely to give their children a less than optimal upbringing?

For example should we ban unmarried women from having children? Or just the lesbian ones?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So because some children feel they were denied of something, we should ban the whole concept?
> 
> Are you aware of any studies that show a large percentage of people raised in same sex marriages feel they were denied something? I mean you should atleast be able to prove that a majority feel this way before you are willing to ban something.
> 
> ...




If you can't see anything wrong with heterosexual children being bought up in an environment that conflicts with their own sexuality, then you have lost all sense of reason.

Did you have a good upbringing with a mother and a father ? Would you prefer to trade in your mother for another father or your father for another mother ? 

Why are you trying to deny others the benefits of a mother and father that you yourself enjoyed ? 

You are so concentrated on being PC that you can't see that children have biological rights as well as legal ones.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If you can't see anything wrong with heterosexual children being bought up in an environment that conflicts with their own sexuality, then you have lost all sense of reason.
> 
> Did you have a good upbringing with a mother and a father ? Would you prefer to trade in your mother for another father or your father for another mother ?
> 
> ...




if there is something wrong with a heterosexual being brought up in an environment with gay parents, that needs to be proved by more than just anecdotal stories.

I wouldn't have swapped either my mother or my father, but no doubt children of gay parents feel the same way in the majority.

I ask again,

Are you in favour of banning single mothers in general or just the lesbian ones?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Are you in favour of banning single mothers in general or just the lesbian ones?




Blimey VC, you say some silly things.

"Single mothers". In the vast majority of cases there is a father around somewhere who has access rights, gets to see the kids and has a part in their upbringing. Not so with lesbian "parents".

Just because gays "have" children by various fabrications does not mean society has to condone, endorse or promote those practices.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Blimey VC, you say some silly things.
> 
> "Single mothers". In the vast majority of cases there is a father around somewhere who has access rights, gets to see the kids and has a part in their upbringing. Not so with lesbian "parents".
> 
> Just because gays "have" children by various fabrications does not mean society has to condone, endorse or promote those practices.




I am talking about the situations where a female decides to have a child and raise it alone, without any contact with the father, whether it be from an intentional one night stand or agreement.

Are you willing to bring in a law that makes that sort of situation illegal? Or are you only concerned with those situations when it happens to be a lesbian couple?


----------



## sydboy007 (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you deny that it does ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I provided you a link to one woman raised by lesbians who's very happy she was.  So there's no consensus from people raised by non heterosexual parents as to if there's a negative or positive impact.

If you can link some first word accounts of what people say they felt was missing from their upbringing by same sex parents I'd be interested to read them.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am talking about the situations where a female decides to have a child and raise it alone, without any contact with the father, whether it be from an intentional one night stand or agreement.
> 
> Are you willing to bring in a law that makes that sort of situation illegal? Or are you only concerned with those situations when it happens to be a lesbian couple?




Society does not need to endorse, condone or promote either single parenting or gay parenting. Somehow I can't see students being sent to a film promoting single motherhood.

It's not a matter of banning, but there is nothing to say we need to make either of those situations easier or more attractive to people.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> If you can link some first word accounts of what people say they felt was missing from their upbringing by same sex parents I'd be interested to read them.




I guess you could start here

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I guess you could start here
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court





 that's only 4 people.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> that's only 4 people.




What about the silent majority ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter of banning, but there is nothing to say we need to make either of those situations easier or more attractive to people.




So you don't believe gay parenting should be illegal?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't believe gay parenting should be illegal?




Not as such, but I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples with out being sued by gays for discrimination, and surrogacy and ivf should be abolished for everyone.

If a woman has children by intercourse with a man and then decides she prefers women, I would say that the father has reasonable grounds for permanent custody, all else being equal.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Somehow I can't see students being sent to a film promoting single motherhood.
> 
> .




Maybe they should. 

Could also include straight males who have children manufactured by some Indian breeder stock using a female friend's, or not, egg.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not as such, but I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples with out being sued by gays for discrimination, and surrogacy and ivf should be abolished for everyone.
> 
> If a woman has children by intercourse with a man and then decides she prefers women, I would say that the father has reasonable grounds for permanent custody, all else being equal.




Well that seems very strange that you would fight to stop gay marriage from becoming legal, and use gay parenting as a reason, but then you don't want gay parenting to be illegal.

I mean wanting gay marriage to be illegal, because you fear gay parenting, but you are fine with gay parenting remaining legal,... Very strange.

As far a custody, I believe custody should be granted to the side able to provide the best home life for the child, sexuality should be ignored.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well that seems very strange that you would fight to stop gay marriage from becoming legal, and use gay parenting as a reason, but then you don't want gay parenting to be illegal.
> 
> I mean wanting gay marriage to be illegal, because you fear gay parenting, but you are fine with gay parenting remaining legal,... Very strange.
> 
> As far a custody, I believe custody should be granted to the side able to provide the best home life for the child, sexuality should be ignored.




There is a difference between legality and approval which you seem unable to discern.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a difference between legality and approval which you seem unable to discern.



So you don't mind if either gay marriage or gay parenting is legal, you just want it to be frowned upon?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't mind if either gay marriage or gay parenting is legal, you just want it to be frowned upon?




I don't want gay parenting to be promoted or publicised as "normal" or "desirable" because it's neither imo, and if there are ways that it can be discouraged, so much the better.


----------



## Value Collector (28 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't want gay parenting to be promoted or publicised as "normal" or "desirable" because it's neither imo, and if there are ways that it can be discouraged, so much the better.




Is that just gay parenting? Or are we still talking about all child raising where one sex is absent?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Is that just gay parenting? Or are we still talking about all child raising where one sex is absent?




Gay parenting is a deliberate action to deprive a child of a mother or father.

 Couples break up for a variety of reasons, mostly unforeseen. There should be some form of education to reduce the frequency of this occurence not to promote it as we had with the film that the schoolgirls were sent to.


----------



## Tisme (29 August 2015)

Of course this study has no relevance:




> Nearly 15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.
> 
> There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
> 
> ...


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Gay parenting is a deliberate action to deprive a child of a mother or father.
> 
> Couples break up for a variety of reasons, mostly unforeseen. There should be some form of education to reduce the frequency of this occurence not to promote it as we had with the film that the schoolgirls were sent to.




The school girls were NOT sent to the film.

It was voluntary.

Stop trying to make out that there was any controversy at the school.  Not a single parent complaint after they were INFORMED of the screening and the children had the RIGHT to study in the library if they or their parents were not comfortable with watching the film.

Divorce is a deliberate action to deprive children of one parent.  Your rosy view of both parents still being in the child's life after divorce is not quite true.  I work with a woman who's going through divorce and the ex has not only abandoned a child from his prior marriage, but has shown little interest in doing much with his two children from his second marriage.  Drugs / Gambling / Abuse mean there a thousands of children every year losing one parent, but your rather silent on how those issues should be resolved so your high standards can be uniformly applied.

Your whole argument seems to be based on that you believe a same sex couple is unable to provide a child with every thing a heterosexual couple can, so therefore should be banned.  The fact many heterosexual couples fail you high standards doesn't particularly matter.

So what if a minority of the children of same sex couples come out against gay marriage.  They're entitled to their views.  Does it mean religion should be banned because some children reject the indoctrination of the religion once they're able to apply some critical thinking to what they've been forced to believe?  Should heterosexual couples be banned form having children because some of them are sexually and physically abused?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

> The fact many heterosexual couples fail you high standards doesn't particularly matter.




It matters in the overall treatment of children, but there is nothing to say that if gay parenting takes a hold the failure rate of gay parents won't be as high.

The hole in your argument is that "all" gay parents are model parents compared to the low point of heterosexual parents. That's a very rosy view which is coloured by your own biases. Gays are just as subject to all the deficiencies that heterosexuals are.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Gay parenting is a deliberate action to deprive a child of a mother or father.
> 
> Couples break up for a variety of reasons, mostly unforeseen. There should be some form of education to reduce the frequency of this occurence not to promote it as we had with the film that the schoolgirls were sent to.




Remember I am not talking about break ups, I am talking about women having babies planning on being single parents. 

But have we got to the point now where you think neither gay parenting or gay marriage should be illeagal?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Remember I am not talking about break ups, I am talking about women having babies planning on being single parents.




This action is usually bought about by the welfare available to single mothers including the baby bonus and other benefits. I support the Baby Bonus being abolished and possibly other benefits being cut so that parents have to take more financial responsibility for their children. This will most likely result in the situation you mention being reduced.

And what's more, a proportion of the women you mention may well be lesbians, so if you try and cast all women in this category as naughty heterosexuals then you do so without evidence for that.




> But have we got to the point now where you think neither gay parenting or gay marriage should be illeagal?




I think I've quite clearly stated my attitude in this thread and I refer you to my previous posts.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It matters in the overall treatment of children, but there is nothing to say that if gay parenting takes a hold the failure rate of gay parents won't be as high.
> 
> The hole in your argument is that "all" gay parents are model parents compared to the low point of heterosexual parents. That's a very rosy view which is coloured by your own biases. Gays are just as subject to all the deficiencies that heterosexuals are.




No that's not our point, it's you guys the constantly say hetero parents are the "gold standard"

Our point is that there is so much more to good parenting than just sexuality, and that sexuality is not the defining trait from which we should judge people's ability to raise balanced children.

I haven't seen the video in question, but isn't it about raising awareness that these families exist rather than "promoting them", isn't about trying to end stigma, isn't that a good thing for children?


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> This action is usually bought about by the welfare available to single mothers including the baby bonus and other benefits. I support the Baby Bonus being abolished and possibly other benefits being cut so that parents have to take more financial responsibility for their children. This will most likely result in the situation you mention being reduced.
> 
> And what's more, a proportion of the women you mention may well be lesbians, so if you try and cast all women in this category as naughty heterosexuals then you do so without evidence for that.
> 
> ...




I think you are wrong if you say it only happens in the welfare communities.

Your previous posts say you are not in favor of making single sex parenting illeagal, so does this change your stance on gay marriages? 

Because it seems weird that you wouldn't be in favor of out lawing a lesbian couple from having a baby, but you are in favor of outlawing a marriage between a lesbian couple who don't want to have a baby.

When your main argument is reasons against single sex parenting, it seems weird you don't want to ban the thing you are against, but wish to ban some other thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Our point is that there is so much more to good parenting than just sexuality, and that sexuality is not the defining trait from which we should judge people's ability to raise balanced children.




I've said SO MANY times that this issue must be judged on a "all else being equal" basis. So yes, good, loving biological parents ARE the gold standard imo, and no matter how well gay parents treat their children there is still a missing biological link and missing male/female role models that heterosexual children need for a balanced upbringing.



> I haven't seen the video in question, but isn't it about raising awareness that these families exist rather than "promoting them", isn't about trying to end stigma, isn't that a good thing for children?




The fact that the film was directed by a Gayby indicates to me that it is more a "promotion" than information/discussion.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact that the film was directed by a Gayby indicates to me that it is more a "promotion" than information/discussion.




So you say we should listen to adult children raised by same sex couples, but then if they do anything more than have a fireside chat on a one to one basis then it's a political agenda and their voice should be ignored.

I'm sure you haven't actually watched the film, so you basing your views on what?  The daily terror and piers ackerman basically.  I challenge you to watch the film then come back with your opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> So you say we should listen to adult children raised by same sex couples, but then if they do anything more than have a fireside chat on a one to one basis then it's a political agenda and their voice should be ignored.
> 
> I'm sure you haven't actually watched the film, so you basing your views on what?  The daily terror and piers ackerman basically.  I challenge you to watch the film then come back with your opinion.




If it only takes account of the views of children who are still dependent on their parents then it's not worth watching.

I can't stand Ackerman as I've said, I never listen or read him, and I never read the Telegraph.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I've said SO MANY times that this issue must be judged on a "all else being equal" basis. So yes, good, loving biological parents ARE the gold standard imo, and no matter how well gay parents treat their children there is still a missing biological link and missing male/female role models that heterosexual children need for a balanced upbringing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the film was directed by a Gayby indicates to me that it is more a "promotion" than information/discussion.




Saying "all else being equal" is not really good enough, because in the real world, there is such a diverse spectrum of parents, it makes comparison impossible.

Because let's say on average, gay parents are equal in every other aspect to heterosexual parents, that would mean that top 50% of gay parents are better parents than the bottom 50% of hetero parents, any rules that caused the bottom 50% of parents to be favoured over the top 50% of same sex parents would be silly.

If it could be proven that on average people of African decent were 10% less intelligent than people of European decent, it in no way gives you any information that lets you judge people, you still need to judge each person individually, because the average has such wide variation that the top 10% of Africans would still be more intelligent than over 80% of whites, any rule that sort to hold them back and promote whites would be wrong.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

Let's say, all else being equal, the average Australian prefers a white doctor to treat them, especially the little old ladies getting hip surgery.

Should medical universities have some rule that states when filling spots, all else being equal, the Asian should be rejected in favour of the white kid? 

Or

let's say that Asians have a higher success rate than White Australians at completing their medical degrees, should the university reject white kids, all else being equal?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.

You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.

Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.
> 
> You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.
> 
> Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.




But the deficiencies you point out have not been proven.  They're your belief.  Show some evidence that child welfare is at risk from being raised by same sex parents and then you start to have some validity to your argument.

The fact there's many happy well adjusted children raised by same sex parents is reasonable proof that there is no across the board harm to children.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> But the deficiencies you point out have not been proven.  They're your belief.  Show some evidence that child welfare is at risk from being raised by same sex parents and then you start to have some validity to your argument.
> 
> The fact there's many happy well adjusted children raised by same sex parents is reasonable proof that there is no across the board harm to children.




What do we mean by "children" ? Up to a certain age children don't know whether they are well off or not. I prefer to listen to them after they become adults and can be more objective, and more are coming out and saying that being raised by gay parents is not such a good deal.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

> Saying "all else being equal" is not really good enough, because in the real world, there is such a diverse spectrum of parents, it makes comparison impossible.




I've heard some people say that if a child was abused by a drunken father in a heterosexual family, then gay parents would be better than that, but that argument is fallacious if the gay parents were also drunken abusers. 

Obviously a non abusive heterosexual parents would also be better than an abusive gay couple.

That's what I mean by comparing like with like.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I've heard some people say that if a child was abused by a drunken father in a heterosexual family, then gay parents would be better than that, but that argument is fallacious if the gay parents were also drunken abusers.
> 
> Obviously a non abusive heterosexual parents would also be better than an abusive gay couple.
> 
> That's what I mean by comparing like with like.




The point of a comment like that is to show that it's not the sexuality that matters, on the spectrum of things that make good parents, sexuality is not a defining trait.

So as I said, have a system that uses sexuality as an input into what makes a good parent is going to give flawed results.

People who think gays a lessor parents will be unfairly thinking some bad things about great parents, and giving in due respect to some others that are not as good.

My whole point is you have to take each case on its own merit, you can't just make decisions on sexuality any more than you can on race.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What you said in your previous two posts is gobbledygook I'm afraid.
> 
> You seem to think that I want to throw gay parents in gaol or send them to Mannus Island, whereas AS I SAID BEFORE, society has no obligation to promote or condone deficiencies in child rearing whether it be caused by single mothers having children for the money or gay parents deliberately depriving a child of a mother or father.
> 
> Both the above are sub optimal situations for the child and although they obviously happen, there is no reason why people like me and others should not point out their deficiencies for the sake of being politically correct.




You have said preference for custody etc should be given based on sexuality, how is this different to saying preference for medical school should be given based on race.

I mean if it could be shown that Asians on average complete the degrees at higher rates that whites, is it ok to reject whites from the university spots, all else being equal?

Though as sydboy pointed out, you still haven't showed your hypothesis to be true yet.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The point of a comment like that is to show that it's not the sexuality that matters, on the spectrum of things that make good parents, sexuality is not a defining trait.
> 
> So as I said, have a system that uses sexuality as an input into what makes a good parent is going to give flawed results.




No, I think you have made a logical error here.

You say there is a "spectrum" , but you want to disregard part of that spectrum, ie the parents sexuality compared to that of the child's.

 I think it's entirely relevant to consider that the difference in the parent's sexuality compared to the child's could contribute to feelings of confusion by the child e.g. "why am I not like my parents ? I'm a girl and I like boys, my parents are girls and they don't like boys, what's wrong with me ?".

Therefore to disregard this imbalance and say it makes no difference to the child's upbringing is dishonest.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Though as sydboy pointed out, you still haven't showed your hypothesis to be true yet.




My "hypothesis" is based partly on the views of people who have been raised by gay parents, some of whom have gone to court and given evidence that they believe gay parenting is detrimental to children.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I think you have made a logical error here.
> 
> You say there is a "spectrum" , but you want to disregard part of that spectrum, ie the parents sexuality compared to that of the child's.
> 
> ...




You can easily raise a child with the concept that different sexualities exist, and let them form their own preferences.



SirRumpole said:


> My "hypothesis" is based partly on the views of people who have been raised by gay parents, some of whom have gone to court and given evidence that they believe gay parenting is detrimental to children.




Yeah, you give more weight to the opinions of people who agree with your pre existing hypothesis, that's not evidence that's confirmation bias


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, you give more weight to the opinions of people who agree with your pre existing hypothesis, that's not evidence that's confirmation bias




Great statement coming from you.

You seem willing to impose on others something you would not want for yourself, but everyone else is who doesn't agree with you is biased not you.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Great statement coming from you.
> 
> You seem willing to impose on others something you would not want for yourself




What do you mean by that?

-----
You cling to statements made by a children of gay parents that are critical of gay parenting, however if those same people came out with positive statements about gay parenting you would ignore them, and you ignore the many other positive testamonials.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What do you mean by that?
> 
> -----
> You cling to statements made by a children of gay parents that are critical of gay parenting, however if those same people came out with positive statements about gay parenting you would ignore them, and you ignore the many other positive testamonials.




You said you would not swap your natural parents for a gay couple, and yet you don't mind other people going through something you didn't experience yourself.

As for ignoring positive testimonials, I haven't seen many of those, from adults at least.

So what would you  say to those who have actually been through the experience, have a good relationship with their gay "parents", but wouldn't want others to go through that ?


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You said you would not swap your natural parents for a gay couple, and yet you don't mind other people going through something you didn't experience yourself.
> 
> As for ignoring positive testimonials, I haven't seen many of those, from adults at least.
> 
> So what would you  say to those who have actually been through the experience, have a good relationship with their gay "parents", but wouldn't want others to go through that ?




I said I wouldn't swap my parents for anyone, I also said the majority of people raised by gays would feel the same way.

have you looked for positive testimonials? Padt of sound reasoning is trying to prove your  own hypothesis wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> have you looked for positive testimonials? Padt of sound reasoning is trying to prove your  own hypothesis wrong.




You should try it sometime yourself.

 And you didn't answer my last question.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> II also said the majority of people raised by gays would feel the same way.




Evidence please.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You should try it sometime yourself.
> 
> And you didn't answer my last question.




I constantly hang question marks on my own beliefs, disproving my own hypothesis is one of the most important parts of my scepticism.

I would probably ask them what exactly about there experience did they not like, and then try to find out if this was a wide spread issue or if it was something that the majority of people in that situation found difficult.


----------



## Value Collector (29 August 2015)

rum pole, here is a short video explaining the importance of hanging a question mark on your own beliefs, I think if you can understand the idea behind the video, it will help you in many areas, especially your investing, it will show help you avoid confirmation bias.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo[/video]


----------



## Atari rose (29 August 2015)

Well here we are debating this topic again. 

The baggage that the parents  bring to me is what is probably the greatest worry for this particular topic. Sure everyone is different, but the baggage brought by memories through parents life goes to define them and gets passed on to the children weather they like it or not.

But first the Children well what can we say;

Because THE CHILDREN. A lot of people are completely emotional when it involves the possibility of anything happening to their or any child. They're willing to trudge through awful jobs and awful lives for their children. They're willing to make up the most artful of lies and psychic defenses to protect their children.

But the "child" is also symbolic of some weird notion of "purity" that is descended from god knows when. The possibility of a different future better than the present and all that ****. Despite children in reality being the most clever and the most vicious of tyrants while being unfathomably stupid at the same time. But when people say "defend the children", really they mean "defend this platonic embodiment of 'purity' from the 'unpure' forces of the world."

Humanity is driven by irrational and crazy psychic forces that utilize rational means.

So I do not agree that the children should have any say in the matter by both sides of this argument. 

The Gay rights activists bring in Children into the debate itself is enough to make most people tune out why? because where are we getting these children from? Cannot give birth out or your ass.

You would have to assume they already had parents or at least one parent.  So therefore one or both are not biological parents. The gay community then tend to tell the world that they are better at raising these children or are giving these children a better life or at least on par with the nuclear family!!!Than what!!? Firstly if the children would not would have been brought into the world other than a sperm donor or surrogate mother (which brings in the baggage) ? so how is that remotely relevant to any argument. Secondly adopting a child from a 3rd world country? Again false positive being drawn by the gay community. Children of the state? have been since the dawn of time, sure children do it tough some tougher than others but as a reason to by the Gay community that they are better parents? 

There is no argument there gay people by rights should not and cannot lay claim to this "fact" that they adhere too. 

Neither could this argument be used for the straight community. The children should not be brought into the argument.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2015)

Atari rose said:


> . The children should not be brought into the argument.




I fail to see how we can have a debate on parenting without mentioning children.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> rum pole, here is a short video explaining the importance of hanging a question mark on your own beliefs, I think if you can understand the idea behind the video, it will help you in many areas, especially your investing, it will show help you avoid confirmation bias.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo[/video]




Val ue Coll ector,

Yes, that was a good video ( I got the rule about half way through).

So what are we saying ? That there are black swans and white swans in gay parenting ? That's obviously true. I have always been ready to concede that some gay parents will give their children everything that they can, but I say that even when they do there is something missing; ie gender diversity and biological links which are important in a childs upbringing.

In terms of confirmation bias, you may like to consider the reams of studies quoted that purport to show that gay parents are just as capable as heterosexuals when it comes to parenting.

How are the subjects selected ? They VOLUNTEER to take part in the study, ie they self select. That indicates that the  people who take part in these studies are those who believe that they will "pass" or do well. 

You would likely get people in a high socio economic / educated group that is not representative of the target population as a whole.  So therefore this is not a balanced sample. The actual numbers in these studies are usually so small that conclusions drawn from  the studies would most likely not be valid.

In some of these surveys, it's the parents that get asked the questions, not the children. This is obviously another source of confirmation bias. The parents will give the answers that will portray them in a better light.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Val ue Coll ector,
> 
> Yes, that was a good video ( I got the rule about half way through).
> 
> So what are we saying ? .




I am saying that when you have developed a hypothesis or an opinion on a topic, searching for examples that confirm this does not get you closer to the truth, especially because human nature normally means we don't see, ignore or give less weight to the examples that contradict our existing ideas.

people that fear flying will search the Internet for examples of plane crashes, and build up large amounts of "evidence" that planes are unsafe and crash a lot, but their search for confirming evidence leads them astray from the facts of the situation, they ignore the hundreds of thousands of flights that make it to their destination and ignore the amazing safety record compared to alternative transport.

Notice that people who have a pre exisiting anti gay marriage and anti gay parenting ideas jump on the claims of Katy Faust and take her as an important authority on the matter, however if Katy faust was a supporter of gay parenting, they would not think she is an important authority, and they would ignore her and say she is just saying that to protect her parents etc.

To me I take Katy Faust as just one data point, in a larger data pool, I do however feel her opinion has been tainted by religious views though, which in my mind give less weight to her opinion, a bit like a person who quoted the bible or qu'ran verses about pork during a scientific discussion on the health value of foods.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> To me I take Katy Faust as just one data point, in a larger data pool, I do however feel her opinion has been tainted by religious views though, which in my mind give less weight to her opinion, a bit like a person who quoted the bible or qu'ran verses about pork during a scientific discussion on the health value of foods.




I find it interesting why she has developed religious views. I really can't see her parents being religious as they are lesbians (all though that doesn't necessarily rule them out), so maybe there was something missing in her childhood that she found in religion.

Lack of a Father figure perhaps ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I find it interesting why she has developed religious views. I really can't see her parents being religious as they are lesbians (all though that doesn't necessarily rule them out), so maybe there was something missing in her childhood that she found in religion.




her parents were not religious, but in an interview she said a Christian group reached out to her while she was in high school, and she became a Christian, due to this she struggled with the biblical teachings against homosexuality and the fact her parents were gay, but said she found redemption in verses where God said he cares for the orphan, so even though her parents might be lost, she is going to be ok with the lord.

I don't now which denomination reached out to her, but it certainly sounds like one with anti gay teachings, which is common in the USA,and they probably targets her because it was common knowledge her parents were gay, and as I said, to me this taints her credibility on the issue.


----------



## Atari rose (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I fail to see how we can have a debate on parenting without mentioning children.





Completely missed the point. Ddi you even read the post? 

If you conceed that homosexual people are equal to hetrosexual people then they should have no problem being parents. Or do you need it spelled out in caps?

Now the debate should be whether they are equal.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Atari rose said:


> Completely missed the point. Ddi you even read the post?
> 
> If you conceed that homosexual people are equal to hetrosexual people then they should have no problem being parents. Or do you need it spelled out in caps?
> 
> Now the debate should be whether they are equal.




Have you read any of my posts ?

I've said I don't believe homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals AS PARENTS, because of the absence of factors that influence THE CHILDREN, such as biological links and gender diversity.

No do you understand why children come into the equation ?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't now which denomination reached out to her, but it certainly sounds like one with anti gay teachings, which is common in the USA,and they probably targets her because it was common knowledge her parents were gay, and as I said, to me this taints her credibility on the issue.




That's possible, but there are also a lot of moderate Christian groups who just offer friendship with a Christian focus.

Your bias against religion leads you to automatically jump to a conclusion that favours your pre-established beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's possible, but there are also a lot of moderate Christian groups who just offer friendship with a Christian focus.
> 
> Your bias against religion leads you to automatically jump to a conclusion that favours your pre-established beliefs.




I am not jumping to the conclusion that she has received anti gay teachings, in an interview I heard she said her self she has struggled with the anti gay biblical teachings, I don't assume all Christians are anti gay.

but look, if a Muslim is preaching against the consumption of pork, it may be based on secular nutrition science, but there is also a good chance their ideas have been corrupted by unfounded religious claims.

I am not completely discounting her arguments, all I am saying is that it's just one data point, and it's one data point that is potentcially corrupted by religious nonsense rather than reality based facts. She should not be viewed as an authority any more than another person of similar upbringing that came forward with a positive view.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's possible, but there are also a lot of moderate Christian groups who just offer friendship with a Christian focus.
> 
> Your bias against religion leads you to automatically jump to a conclusion that favours your pre-established beliefs.




from her blog, which I believe confirms what VC has said shows she is definitely not a member of a moderate Christian group



> If you are serious about being biblical, this is my challenge for you, Christian reader. *When you find yourself in a heated situation, please treat the gays in your life as enemies. (No, you didn’t read that wrong.) As believers, there are commands about how to interact with our enemies.*




She does go on to waffle about treating people with love and respect, but to say a gay person is your enemy seems to go against what comes after determining gays are the enemy.

It's a very strange view to have.  I doubt she'd be thinking this way if not for religion.

She says her parents divorce was the most traumatic experience her life.  Probably every child that goes through their parents divorcing would say the same thing.

She's been working with Robert Oscar Lopez who 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."




Lopez has also equated same sex parenting with slavery, also comparing it to a crime against children, same sex parents adopting children as cultural genocide.  Lopez has been crazily ranting about same sex marriage for a long time.  He even claims that the tolerance shown towards gays in the USA means gays in other countries will increasingly face more draconian laws against them.

Faust has lodged a number of amicus briefs with Lopez against same sex marriage.  Do you think someone actively working with Lopez would have moderate views, especially when they're telling anyone who'll listen to them that gays are the *enemy*?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am not completely discounting her arguments, all I am saying is that it's just one data point, and it's one data point that is potentcially corrupted by religious nonsense rather than reality based facts. She should not be viewed as an authority any more than another person of similar upbringing that came forward with a positive view.




OK that's fine, but would it be also fair enough to say to a Gayby who comes out in support of gay parenting that their view has been influenced by their parents or the fact that they have no experience of the alternative and so they cannot make a unbiased judgement ?

In which case it seems that anyone can ignore any argument that does not fit their beliefs.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> OK that's fine, but would it be also fair enough to say to a Gayby who comes out in support of gay parenting that their view has been influenced by their parents or the fact that they have no experience of the alternative and so they cannot make a unbiased judgement ?
> 
> In which case it seems that anyone can ignore any argument that does not fit their beliefs.




Does the fact you were raised by heterosexual parents mean it's fair enough to say your views have been influenced by your parents, or the fact you have no experience of the alternative so you cannot make an unbiased judgement?

In a way we're getting down to nature and nurture.

If you could have 10 'clones" of someone and they were raised by 10 different families how different would they be?  Conversely what similarities would they share?

A child raised by one set of parents may thrive, but may not respond so well if brought up by another couple.

How do you show that a child raised by same sex parents that has issues only has those issues because of same sex parents?  How could you empirically show that if raised by different same sex parents or heterosexual parents that the outcome would have been different, or would it have been the same?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> from her blog, which I believe confirms what VC has said shows she is definitely not a member of a moderate Christian group




Also from Katy Faust's blog (bolds are mine)



> Last week a cohort of bloggers spearheaded by a Pink Agendist participated in exposing my real identity.  Pink then proceeded to slander my husband and my church on his blog.  He published the names and addresses of our home community leaders as well as my friends’ picture.  Though some of these people from my church have probably never read my blog, they were made to suffer because I choose to write about gay marriage. So, what’s a Jesus-loving girl to do in that situation?  Spend some time sick to her tin-can-telephonestomach? Yes.  Bury her troubles in a Downton Abby marathon?  The Countess may give me some words of wisdom, after all.  Or put on her big-girl pants and do the hardest thing of all: initiate a conversation with one who has sought to harm her friends and family. And so, with very little hope that it would result in anything other than more taunting and personal attacks, heart racing I clicked “send.”
> 
> Dear Pink. This is Katy Faust. *I am writing in an attempt to see you not as an adversary, but as a person.*  We are on different continents, so I think that there is very little that I could ever do for you in terms of tangible service and encouragement.  But I have an obligation and a desire to do something that you would consider meaningful in terms of caring for you. Obviously, if the only way you feel I can do that is to change my beliefs then I will not be able to offer you anything.  But one of my beliefs is that I am to make peace through sacrifice.  Can I do that somehow for you? If I was basing my actions on whether or not I thought they were going to bear fruit, I wouldn’t bother to send this email.  *But I am writing this email because I believe that you are a valuable, gifted, and precious person. * And because you deserve to be seen as more than a gravitar in my mind.  And I am to make every effort to live at peace with all men. So, that’s all. Best wishes, Katy




That doesn't sound to me like someone addressing an enemy.

However, whatever people say can be taken out of context if read and not heard first hand, so I'm not going to deduce anything about her from one quote.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> OK that's fine, but would it be also fair enough to say to a Gayby who comes out in support of gay parenting that their view has been influenced by their parents or the fact that they have no experience of the alternative and so they cannot make a unbiased judgement ?
> 
> In which case it seems that anyone can ignore any argument that does not fit their beliefs.




What matters is whether well balanced children are being generated by these parents in the same proportion as by straight parents.

The only way to figure this out is through a broad based study, until that happens it is wrong to make any judgements that would out law it or restrict it. Because it is not a matter of clear cut right or wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What matters is whether well balanced children are being generated by these parents in the same proportion as by straight parents.
> 
> The only way to figure this out is through a broad based study, until that happens it is wrong to make any judgements that would out law it or restrict it. Because it is not a matter of clear cut right or wrong.




I think it is up to the gay community who are not biologically equipped to have children without outside assistance to prove that their version of parenting produces the same our better outcomes for children as a well balanced natural family would produce.

 However what I object to is children being used as part of a social experiment by a minority group to try and prove that they can do things that nature has not equipped them to do. 

The first priority of scientific experiments that involve human beings is to get *volunteers* for the study. As it's impossible to get informed consent from the children involved, then this is an experiment that should not be attempted in the first place imo.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it is up to the gay community who are not biologically equipped to have children without outside assistance to prove that their version of parenting produces the same our better outcomes for children as a well balanced natural family would produce.
> 
> However what I object to is children being used as part of a social experiment by a minority group to try and prove that they can do things that nature has not equipped them to do.
> 
> The first priority of scientific experiments that involve human beings is to get *volunteers* for the study. As it's impossible to get informed consent from the children involved, then this is an experiment that should not be attempted in the first place imo.




There were over 54000 substantiated reports of child welfare abuse and neglect in 2013-14, up nearly 20% on the 2009-2010 level.

Those children didn't give consent to be born and raised by parents that would mistreat them.

It would seem in the case of parental abuse of children that nature has not equipped them to be good parents.

What restrictions on procreation do you feel are warranted to stop any further increase?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> What restrictions on procreation do you feel are warranted to stop any further increase?




Reduction in welfare payments for having children, better enforcement of AVO's, better education for both males and females on child rearing, more safe houses for women, earlier intervention by child welfare agencies for children at risk, higher penalties for child abuse.

In any case, again you are assuming that gay people are above this sort of thing. Can you prove that ?


----------



## Atari rose (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Have you read any of my posts ?
> 
> I've said I don't believe homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals AS PARENTS, because of the absence of factors that influence THE CHILDREN, such as biological links and gender diversity.
> 
> No do you understand why children come into the equation ?




Biological links and Gender Diversity? What about the surrogate mothers who carry for straight couples? what about straight couple adoption? are they the same issues? 

If you cannot see the children as the variable then you are not fighting logically.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Reduction in welfare payments for having children, better enforcement of AVO's, better education for both males and females on child rearing, more safe houses for women, earlier intervention by child welfare agencies for children at risk, higher penalties for child abuse.
> 
> In any case, again you are assuming that gay people are above this sort of thing. Can you prove that ?




I'm not saying gay people will be perfect parents, but it seems unfair to say you are worried about child welfare and only targeting same sex parenting.

How would reducing welfare payments help child welfare?  If a couple has their children, gainfully employed but then one of them loses their job, how is reducing assistance to the children in their interest?  Maybe one of the parents decides they've had enough and desserts their partner.  Plenty of cases of this every year.  It's been showing that the productivity benefits of spending on children before they enter school is repaid in multiples over their lives.

Do we need to increase taxation to better fund child protection services, or what other spending should be cut so as to better protect children?  

Most people have no idea what the penalties are for particular crimes, so tougher penalties for child abuse are unlikely to have any impact.  The death penalty has no impact on the incidence of murder and violent crime.

Is it child abuse to drink while pregnant?  Is it child abuse for men or women to take recreational drugs and then having sex that could produce a child?  Lots of research out there showing what can happen - from birth defects to neurological impacts.

I don't think it's possible to argue you are trying to protect children if at the same time you deny the need for heterosexuals to have any limit on their ability to procreate.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm not saying gay people will be perfect parents, but it seems unfair to say you are worried about child welfare and only targeting same sex parenting.
> 
> How would reducing welfare payments help child welfare?




The baby bonus is an incentive to have children in the first place. Removing this removes an incentive for single mothers etc to get a financial bonus for merely having a child. 



> Do we need to increase taxation to better fund child protection services, or what other spending should be cut so as to better protect children?




Family tax benefits are the second biggest welfare payment after the OAP. So cutting this payment and putting it into child care would seem to make sense.



> Most people have no idea what the penalties are for particular crimes, so tougher penalties for child abuse are unlikely to have any impact.  The death penalty has no impact on the incidence of murder and violent crime.




Keeping violent abusers behind bars and therefore protecting their potential victims produces a benefit to the community.



> Is it child abuse to drink while pregnant?  Is it child abuse for men or women to take recreational drugs and then having sex that could produce a child?  Lots of research out there showing what can happen - from birth defects to neurological impacts.




Yes, I think this point is a good one, and maybe such things should be considered to be child abuse.



> I don't think it's possible to argue you are trying to protect children if at the same time you deny the need for heterosexuals to have any limit on their ability to procreate.




I don't deny that we should do more in child welfare generally. The idea of cutting child welfare benefits to parents and put that into better child care and child protection services is to reduce the incidence of people having children for the financial benefits. Doing this will result in less , but better cared for children.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I think it is up to the gay community who are not biologically equipped to have children without outside assistance to prove that their version of parenting produces the same our better outcomes for children as a well balanced natural family would produce.
> 
> However what I object to is children being used as part of a social experiment by a minority group to try and prove that they can do things that nature has not equipped them to do.
> 
> The first priority of scientific experiments that involve human beings is to get *volunteers* for the study. As it's impossible to get informed consent from the children involved, then this is an experiment that should not be attempted in the first place imo.




You have to be able to prove something is harmful before it can be banned.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You have to be able to prove something is harmful before it can be banned.




So maybe we can test some new drugs on you without your consent to see if they are harmful or not.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So maybe we can test some new drugs on you without your consent to see if they are harmful or not.




That's a bit OTT..... as if an adult would risk his own welfare; he might have kids, a wife and a psychiatrist to support....

I fear the tribal partisanship just won't allow objective consideration for children DELIBERATELY manufactured to be the embodiment of an emotional protest against the rest of society. 

Like it or not those primary schoolers who are held up as the paragon of innocence and acceptance of kids with two mums or two dads, will find that nature and hormones will have the final say on how they feel about survival of the fittest and their society.

As for the kids who have to cop the teasing and the silence for the rest of their lives, well they have no choice but form another community subset and demand some kind of special recognition .... just wait and see.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> As for the kids who have to cop the teasing and the silence for the rest of their lives, well they have no choice but form another community subset and demand some kind of special recognition .... just wait and see.




Another "Stolen Generation" ?


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Another "Stolen Generation" ?




They will have to stay in line, because the next logical step is already in train:

scientists are already having success in taking a body cell from one mammal species and fusing it to an enucleated egg from another. The cloned embryos are then implanted into the uterus of the donor species.

So, given how we are going with the whole life is cheap thing, we (hopefully not me) should be seeing third world breeder women carry a rebirthed version of "Tiddles" the cat, probably some surrogate sheep carrying a hipster couple's fashion accessory child, .... the potential is endless  ..... and anyone who protests will be a xenophobe or hateful bigot. 

Hate to be the Indian women who gets the elephant egg.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2015)

Tisme said:


> They will have to stay in line, because the next logical step is already in train:
> 
> scientists are already having success in taking a body cell from one mammal species and fusing it to an enucleated egg from another. The cloned embryos are then implanted into the uterus of the donor species.
> 
> ...




There is a science fiction book of short stories called Dangerous Visions edited by Harlan Ellison in the 80s I think which has women producing all sorts of items with their wombs. All coming true.


----------



## Value Collector (31 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So maybe we can test some new drugs on you without your consent to see if they are harmful or not.




Drugs are a special case.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Drugs are a special case.




Yes, they might actually do some good.


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, they might actually do some good.




You getting gnarly and narky in your old age?


----------



## Tisme (31 August 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> There is a science fiction book of short stories called Dangerous Visions edited by Harlan Ellison in the 80s I think which has women producing all sorts of items with their wombs. All coming true.




Wouldn't be the first time life imitates art. I might have to look that book up.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, they might actually do some good.




You have to be able to prove something is harmful before you can restrict people's rights.

We know that a certain percentage of drugs are going to turn out harmful, having bad side effects or not have the positive effects the makers hope, that's already been proven over the years, hence we have a rule that before we unleash them on the market, they must prove that they are safe.

Do you see the difference, we already know that drugs in a lot of cases turn out harmful, so they are restricted until proven safe.

You have no evidence that confirms gay parenting is harmful, so it doesn't diserve to be restricted, unless you can prove that gay parenting causes harm.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You have to be able to prove something is harmful before you can restrict people's rights.
> 
> We know that a certain percentage of drugs are going to turn out harmful, having bad side effects or not have the positive effects the makers hope, that's already been proven over the years, hence we have a rule that before we unleash them on the market, they must prove that they are safe.
> 
> ...




People have a right not to be experimented on without their consent, whether harm can be proven or not. 

Testimonials from people bought up this way who would have preferred not to have been is evidence that there may be harm in the process, therefore it should not proceed, and should not be endorsed or promoted by society.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You have no evidence that confirms gay parenting is harmful, so it doesn't diserve to be restricted, unless you can prove that gay parenting causes harm.




tell that to the thousands of women in Africa who are dying from AIDS due to their children's father poking his into another man. Tell the kids how lucky they are to have a homosexually active father.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> tell that to the thousands of women in Africa who are dying from AIDS due to their children's father poking his into another man. Tell the kids how lucky they are to have a homosexually active father.




Firstly, aids in Africa is spread mostly by heterosexuals, if a man brings home aids to his wife, he is far more likely to have got it from a female prostitute.

Secondly, if you ended the stigma, and laws against homosexuality in those countries gay men wouldn't need to hide in fake relationships.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People have a right not to be experimented on without their consent, whether harm can be proven or not.
> 
> Testimonials from people bought up this way who would have preferred not to have been is evidence that there may be harm in the process, therefore it should not proceed, and should not be endorsed or promoted by society.




It's no more of an experiment than any other form of up bringing, and as discussed earlier, you are simply counting the negative testimonials and not the positive ones.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's no more of an experiment than any other form of up bringing




It is an experiment because gays are not biologically or genetically equipped to have children without some sort of fabrication, they just want to pretend that they are "just like anyone else", which in the case of parenting they definitely are not.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Geez,  Gays have got propaganda everywhere.

Is anyone else getting ads for "Gay Ski Week" in NZ at the bottom of this thread ?


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly, aids in Africa is spread mostly by heterosexuals, if a man brings home aids to his wife, he is far more likely to have got it from a female prostitute.
> 
> Secondly, if you ended the stigma, and laws against homosexuality in those countries gay men wouldn't need to hide in fake relationships.




Oh so when a man pokes another man in the anus it's hetrosexual because he then sticks the same penis into a woman's vagina, or into his many wives of his polygynous harem? Many of those men force themselves on their wives because it is their right to do so.

There are  serodiscordant and discordant relationships, whatever, males are by far and away the greater risk of giving aids to a woman through natural method intercourse than a woman giving it to a male. You start putting the old fella up someone's ar5e and there is a real risk of pushing gunk pneumatically up the penis and viola you're dead and the world should feel sorry for you.

There must be a lot of your prostitutes in Africa to infect upto 30% of some countries sexually active populations.

You need to talk to some of those social workers who go over and try to help those women and they will tell you what the men get into.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It is an experiment because gays are not biologically or genetically equipped to have children without some sort of fabrication, they just want to pretend that they are "just like anyone else", which in the case of parenting they definitely are not.




The same can be said for many heterosexual couples, who for one reason or another can not have their own biological children, and therefore turn to adoption and Other options.

also as pointed out, a lesbian having a child without a man is no different to a single woman having a baby, except she probably has more help because she has a partner.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Oh so when a man pokes another man in the anus it's hetrosexual because he then sticks the same penis into a woman's vagina, or into his many wives of his polygynous harem? Many of those men force themselves on their wives because it is their right to do so.
> 
> There are  serodiscordant and discordant relationships, whatever, males are by far and away the greater risk of giving aids to a woman through natural method intercourse than a woman giving it to a male. You start putting the old fella up someone's ar5e and there is a real risk of pushing gunk pneumatically up the penis and viola you're dead and the world should feel sorry for you.
> 
> ...




Only 1% of any given population is going to be gay, so if large numbers of wives are getting aids, you can't blame it on the gays, I don't think gays are going around raping everyone's wives.

Also, this would be completely eliminated if society accepted gays and didn't force them into hiding in fake hetero relationships.

as I said, if large numbers of women are being infected with aids, it has to be coming from their straight husbands, prostitution is the most likely cause, think about it, is the town gay going around raping everyone's wives, or is the town hooker infected and the husbands are sleeping with her and then later doing their wives?

The church inspired banning of condoms in some communities also doesn't help.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The same can be said for many heterosexual couples, who for one reason or another can not have their own biological children, and therefore turn to adoption and Other options.
> 
> also as pointed out, a lesbian having a child without a man is no different to a single woman having a baby, except she probably has more help because she has a partner.




Society does not promote that single motherhood is a good thing for children and we should be "tolerant" and "accepting" of it because it's good for children. It's not and neither is gay parenting, so I don't see why we should promote or be tolerant of that either.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not and neither is gay parenting, so I don't see why we should promote or be tolerant of that either.




That's the sticking point though, you have yet to prove its not good for children, so until it can be shown that gay parenting has meaningful down sides, then you should be atleast tolerant of it.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's the sticking point though, you have yet to prove its not good for children, so until it can be shown that gay parenting has meaningful down sides, then you should be atleast tolerant of it.




If you don't consider being deprived of a biological parent, or having to live in an environment that is not consistent with your natural instincts is not a "meaningful downside" then you have lost all sense of objectivity.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> If you don't consider being deprived of a biological parent, or having to live in an environment that is not consistent with your natural instincts is not a "meaningful downside" then you have lost all sense of objectivity.




In the case of biological parents, it should be treated the same as all other cases where the biological parent isn't present, eg the straight couple that requires a sperm or egg doner.

As far as "natural instincts", I think a straight child will turn out straight regardless, and society is so geared to straight people that they wouldn't have a problem.



------

As discussed a while back, the problem of biological parents is pretty close to being solved, the science of making an embryo from two eggs or two sperm is pretty well advanced. in future years a lesbian couple could have their own biological children, and with the help of a willing female two gay men could father biological children.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As far as "natural instincts", I think a straight child will turn out straight regardless, and society is so geared to straight people that they wouldn't have a problem.




That's your opinion, which you don't have a right to impose on others. I think it would result in confusion and gender identity problems which would not be present with heterosexual biological parents.



> As discussed a while back, the problem of biological parents is pretty close to being solved, the science of making an embryo from two eggs or two sperm is pretty well advanced. in future years a lesbian couple could have their own biological children, and with the help of a willing female two gay men could father biological children.




Yes and we can graft an ear onto an arm but what good is it ? Frankenstein science to solve a non existent problem, except in the minds of a few.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That's your opinion, which you don't have a right to impose on others.
> 
> 
> .




Aren't you the one trying to impose your opinion / unproven hypothesis onto society?

You have devised this theory in your head, which isn't even a theory its a hypothesis, you have completely skipped the step of proving it, and you want to deny people rights based on it.





> I think it would result in confusion and gender identity problems which would not be present with heterosexual biological parents.




Ok, so you "think" that, can you prove that? until you can, we can't take peoples rights away based on a hypothesis.



> Yes and we can graft an ear onto an arm but what good is it ? Frankenstein science to solve a non existent problem, except in the minds of a few




It solves the problem of non biological parents, if that's a non existent problem, why did you bring it up as a problem.

You said a major problem with gay parents is that the child would end up not being the biologically related to one of the parents this technology would prevent that #happy days, lol


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You have devised this theory in your head, which isn't even a theory its a hypothesis, you have completely skipped the step of proving it, and you want to deny people rights based on it.




I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.

You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ? 

If there is any possibility of harm to children, the "experiment" should not continue.

You seem to think that only adults have "rights". I happen to think that children have rights too which is to be raised by their biological parents in an environment that is in accordance with their natural instincts and does not conflict with them. 

Rights cannot be conferred on people who are not biologically equipped to carry out those rights. 



> You said a major problem with gay parents is that the child would end up not being the biologically related to one of the parents this technology would prevent that #happy days, lol




There is no problem that gays cannot have children. Evolution has decided that it's not a good idea for this to happen. It's the luck of the draw, get over it.


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Geez,  Gays have got propaganda everywhere.
> 
> Is anyone else getting ads for "Gay Ski Week" in NZ at the bottom of this thread ?




It's an ad for Natural Gas for me.


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.
> 
> You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ?
> 
> ...




Anecdotal evidence is fine, but it doesn't prove gay parent is bad for children, does it?

So there's a percentage of children raised in gay marriages/family... and those children weren't happy with the situation etc.  Can we conclude that the cause for their unhappiness and ill-treatment etc. were due to "gayness" , gay parenting? 

Don't think we can.

We can only if, say, 95% of all kids from gay parents suffer mental and physical harm... at that rate we could possibly conclude that it is highly likely that gay parents is the cause of harm. But to point to a few cases, as bad as any one case is... we can't point to that and conclude that gay parenting is bad and harmful.


If we apply the same rule that's being apply to gay parenting/marriage and children... we'd definitely should ban hetero parenting too... There's a bunch of ill-adjusted, unhappy kids from straight couples as well. If that's going too far, we sure can find other sub-class within straight parents... too rich, too poor, too black, too white.

---

Anyway, as I probably have said before... the best thing about gays having children is they actually want to have children. They've gone the extra few miles to have children... and so the kids they raised are wanted and loved. That's a better start to life than most other instances.

The kids might grow up and hate that their parents are "different", that they're not like everybody else at school etc.... but that's life, ya ungrateful lil...


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

> Anyway, as I probably have said before... the best thing about gays having children is they actually want to have children. They've gone the extra few miles to have children... and so the kids they raised are wanted and loved. That's a better start to life than most other instances.




I don't think you can automatically conclude that the only reason gays have children is because they want them. 

There would be a big pressure on them to try and reduce their own perception that they are socially isolated by attempting to imitate the heterosexual community by having children and thereby attempting to prove that they are "the same" as everyone else. Also they try and manipulate the kids as a vanguard for their own lifestyle, by getting them to appear on TV or in doco's saying how great their life is. This is while the kids are still dependent on their parents so how good is that "evidence".


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.
> 
> You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ?
> 
> ...




As previously discussed you can't just cherry pick a few negative testimonials say that prove your hypothesis, also as I have said, I don't ignore the negative testimonials you have quoted, I just see them for what they are, 1 data point among many, we would need a broad based study to reveal the truth.

Gay parenting isn't an experiment, it's just a part of life, gays have kids, and will continue to have kids, if you want that banned, then prove its harmful simple as that.

Raised according to their "natural instincts", so if a test at birth could determine sexuality, would you be fine with gay children being removed from straight parents and adopted out to gay parents


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As previously discussed you can't just cherry pick a few negative testimonials say that prove your hypothesis, also as I have said, I don't ignore the negative testimonials you have quoted, I just see them for what they are, 1 data point among many, we would need a broad based study to reveal the truth.




So you agree that there is no "truth" at the moment and all those purported studies trotted out by the gay lobby are bunkum ?





> Gay parenting isn't an experiment, it's just a part of life, gays have kids, and will continue to have kids, if you want that banned, then prove its harmful simple as that.




First do no harm, should be the way to proceed. The burden of proof should be on those saying there is no harm because if there is, they are the ones at fault.




> Raised according to their "natural instincts", so if a test at birth could determine sexuality, would you be fine with gay children being removed from straight parents and adopted out to gay parents




I don't believe children should be removed from their natural parents, biological links are better than no links.


----------



## luutzu (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think you can automatically conclude that the only reason gays have children is because they want them.
> 
> There would be a big pressure on them to try and reduce their own perception that they are socially isolated by attempting to imitate the heterosexual community by having children and thereby attempting to prove that they are "the same" as everyone else. Also they try and manipulate the kids as a vanguard for their own lifestyle, by getting them to appear on TV or in doco's saying how great their life is. This is while the kids are still dependent on their parents so how good is that "evidence".




I don't know... don't think social pressure or wanting to get along and be "normal" would be enough of a motivation to have kids. If a person want kids like they want the latest accessories, well they got a problem to start with and it have nothing to do with them being gay.

If we take an evolutionary, biological instinct to procreate and pass on the gene... that there will be some percent of the population who's genetically gay so they don't breed and help raise others young... or they're gay but still want to pass on their gene like the straights... then you would be in favour of gays being able to marry and gay couple being able to have children of their own too.

Why? It could be argue that homosexuals, due either to societal/religious pressures or due to genetic instincts or both would get married to the opposite sex to start a family - have children... But they're gay... and eventually that will be apparent or they will be "found out" and marriage will end. Results in broken home, broken marriages and the kids will have only one parent as a result.

But if you remove societal pressure and prejudice against gays; if you allow them to start a normal gay marriage/family with children... you would reduce that chance of gay people getting marry and then divorce (small number that it is, but it does add to the positives and save a few kids too); remove stigmas against gay children at school etc.

anyway, social engineering aside... homosexuals are citizens and are human... and as long as they are they ought to be treated as equal before the law. 

Since we cannot ensure that straight parents or straight parenting turn out perfectly happy children, why must that golden standard apply to homosexual parents? If they sexually or physically abuse their children, sure... but to suggest that their lifestyle might be a bad influence on the kids, or their frequent partying or whatever mean the kids can't study properly... we don't apply that same standard to other parents so why apply that to gays?


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Only 1% of any given population is going to be gay,




Not true. In Africa the percentages are much different. Whereas AIDS in the West is 90% in homosexual men, druggies and blood recipients, in Africa the split is 50/50 males females. The Africans never had the plagues that Europe and Asia did, so they are very prone to AIDS.

Of the homosexual community in the west, black are twice as likely to be so than whites, followed by Asians, then Latino.

In South Africa 7% practice homosexual behaviour. Elsewhere it's well documented by Darkest Africa Portuguese priests, Dutch attaches, French, etc that Africans were well into the practice for various reasons: in between wifery, lucky charm wealth creation through penile intercourse, staying chaste before marriage, boy hood tradition before becoming men,


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Not true. In Africa the percentages are much different. Whereas AIDS in the West is 90% in homosexual men, druggies and blood recipients, in Africa the split is 50/50 males females. The Africans never had the plagues that Europe and Asia did, so they are very prone to AIDS.
> 
> Of the homosexual community in the west, black are twice as likely to be so than whites, followed by Asians, then Latino.
> 
> In South Africa 7% practice homosexual behaviour. Elsewhere it's well documented by Darkest Africa Portuguese priests, Dutch attaches, French, etc that Africans were well into the practice for various reasons: in between wifery, lucky charm wealth creation through penile intercourse, staying chaste before marriage, boy hood tradition before becoming men,




Your numbers still don't add up, even if say Africans are 5 times more likely to be gay (unlikely, but I will humour you) and 100% have HIV (unlikely but let the humouring continue) and 100% of them have wives (again unlikely) and 100% of them pass  HIV wives then you would only be looking at 10% of the population.

The fact is HIV/AIDS is being spread by the hetero sexuals to a larger extent simply because there is far more hetero sexuals involved in risky behaviour, eg unprotected prostitution, 

When I was in the army, I served in an area with Kenyan soldiers, we were specifically warned that the local hookers have a high HIV rate due to the Kenyan army being posted there, and the Kenyan army had a high rate of HIV due to their habits to indulge in the hookers.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you agree that there is no "truth" at the moment and all those purported studies trotted out by the gay lobby are bunkum ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am not aware of any studies that have been done on a broad enough base with scientific based principles, but I would treat the positive testimonials as data points.

No first you just let people that want to care for children to have children, that's what humans do, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming there is harm.

So if the children are biological children of gays you are fine with gay parenting?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No first you just let people that want to care for children to have children, that's what humans do, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming there is harm.




We'll have to disagree on that.

 If I'm wrong there is no damage done, if you are wrong and there is harm done you had better be prepared to take some responsibility.



> So if the children are biological children of gays you are fine with gay parenting?




No, children need male and female role models because they will be living in a heterosexual world not a homosexual one, and one of the roles of parenting is to prepare the kids for the lives they will be leading, not that their parents lead.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> We'll have to disagree on that.
> 
> If I'm wrong there is no damage done, if you are wrong and there is harm done you had better be prepared to take some responsibility.
> 
> ...




There is damage done if you are wrong, gay parents who otherwise would have been great parents lose the ability to have that life experiance, 



> No, children need male and female role models because they will be living in a heterosexual world not a homosexual one, and one of the roles of parenting is to prepare the kids for the lives they will be leading, not that their parents lead




This is not a "heterosexual world" it's a world where gender and sexual diversity exist.

But again you would have to demonstrate that on average children of single sex parentage (either gay or straight) suffer in some way, we can't just take your hypothesis as fact.


----------



## Tisme (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Your numbers still don't add up, even if say Africans are 5 times more likely to be gay (unlikely, but I will humour you) and 100% have HIV (unlikely but let the humouring continue) and 100% of them have wives (again unlikely) and 100% of them pass  HIV wives then you would only be looking at 10% of the population.
> 
> The fact is HIV/AIDS is being spread by the hetero sexuals to a larger extent simply because there is far more hetero sexuals involved in risky behaviour, eg unprotected prostitution,
> 
> When I was in the army, I served in an area with Kenyan soldiers, we were specifically warned that the local hookers have a high HIV rate due to the Kenyan army being posted there, and the Kenyan army had a high rate of HIV due to their habits to indulge in the hookers.




Check you numbers then come back and argue the toss. You have your blinkers on.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> This is not a "heterosexual world" it's a world where gender and sexual diversity exist.




99% of the population will be heterosexual. That's not sufficient gender diversity to believe that heterosexuals would benefit by being raised by 1% of the population.



> But again you would have to demonstrate that on average children of single sex parentage (either gay or straight) suffer in some way, we can't just take your hypothesis as fact.




I've said before, you will be doing damage to children if you are wrong, so you prove your case first that there is no harm before you inflict your PC theories on others.,


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Check you numbers then come back and argue the toss. You have your blinkers on.




Even if all those assumptions were true, which they aren't, it doesn't come close to 30%, so it has to be heterosexual activity, your the one wearing homophobic blinkers my friend.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> 99% of the population will be heterosexual. That's not sufficient gender diversity to believe that heterosexuals would benefit by being raised by 1% of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said before, you will be doing damage to children if you are wrong, so you prove your case first that there is no harm before you inflict your PC theories on others.,




That's right, nearly 99% of the population is straight, so there is plenty of straight influence all around kids as they grow up, not to mention that they will be what they are regardless.

I can make up any crazy hypothesis that certain things will cause damage, is it up to you to prove me wrong or me to prove what I say is true?

I mean if your wrong you will cause damage,


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's right, nearly 99% of the population is straight, so there is plenty of straight influence all around kids as they grow up, not to mention that they will be what they are regardless.
> 
> I can make up any crazy hypothesis that certain things will cause damage, is it up to you to prove me wrong or me to prove what I say is true?
> 
> I mean if your wrong you will cause damage,




Have a look at evolution ... yep things are getting queer around here ... Last time I looked it takes a MUMMY and a DADDY ... which one are you ? Do you sit down to piss? Do you take the upper hand? Ying and Yang not Equal FERKIN rights to whom? Society is guilt ridden enough without adding more grist to the mill.


----------



## Value Collector (1 September 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Have a look at evolution ... yep things are getting queer around here ... Last time I looked it takes a MUMMY and a DADDY ... which one are you ? Do you sit down to piss? Do you take the upper hand? Ying and Yang not Equal FERKIN rights to whom? Society is guilt ridden enough without adding more grist to the mill.




If you want to reduce guilt, reduce religion, that's the biggest guilt generating entity we have, and it's not a coincidence that it's the main opposition to gay rights.


----------



## ghotib (2 September 2015)

The original question was What's uniquely gay about gay parenting?  

6 days and 5 pages later nobody has answered it. The closest is Sir Rumpole, who says there's probably nothing uniquely gay about the process of parenting but the fact of living in a gay household might have an effect, unspecified but by implication unfortunate, on a child. Nobody talked about how gay single parents might be identifiably different from straight single parents.

I think this suggests that nobody on this thread can define gay parenting, and I think the very good reason for that is most likely that it doesn't exist. There's just families.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

ghotib said:


> I think this suggests that nobody on this thread can define gay parenting, and I think the very good reason for that is most likely that it doesn't exist. There's just families.




Gay parenting is when the two parents (or substitute parents) of a household where a child is raised are of the same sex. What more do you want than that ?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's right, nearly 99% of the population is straight, so there is plenty of straight influence all around kids as they grow up, not to mention that they will be what they are regardless.




The "straight influence" does not come from the home environment which should be the main source because that is where the biological links are. Outside influence may be good or bad, it doesn't care for the child as much as biological parents do.


----------



## Tink (2 September 2015)

ghotib said:


> The original question was What's uniquely gay about gay parenting?
> 
> 6 days and 5 pages later nobody has answered it. The closest is Sir Rumpole, who says there's probably nothing uniquely gay about the process of parenting but the fact of living in a gay household might have an effect, unspecified but by implication unfortunate, on a child. Nobody talked about how gay single parents might be identifiably different from straight single parents.
> 
> I think this suggests that nobody on this thread can define gay parenting, and I think the very good reason for that is most likely that it doesn't exist. There's just families.




I suppose another question is -- what is family?

If you took an individual out of the context and asked about their family, what would be their answer?

Their roots, their heritage, where they came from?

People don't just pop up out of thin air.

The first thing they would say, is my mother and father, their siblings, their grand parents etc.

All this marketing language to push a cause, gets a bit tiring.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Even if all those assumptions were true, which they aren't, it doesn't come close to 30%, so it has to be heterosexual activity, your the one wearing homophobic blinkers my friend.




I can see you are being stubborn in the face of fact. I'll give you a starter = UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER

here's another clue:



> The proportion of HIV-positive women in stable heterosexual serodiscordant relationships was 47% (95% CI 43-52) in 27 cohort studies enrolling 13,061 couples and 46% (CI 41-51) in Demographic and Health Survey data from 14 countries. Women are just as likely as men to be the HIV-positive partner in a discordant couple.





You even going to bother referring to case studies or just continue with blind faith?


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's right, nearly 99% of the population is straight, so there is plenty of straight influence all around kids as they grow up, not to mention that they will be what they are regardless.
> 
> I can make up any crazy hypothesis that certain things will cause damage, is it up to you to prove me wrong or me to prove what I say is true?
> 
> I mean if your wrong you will cause damage,




Some people get Rolls Royce parenting, others get the Holden, some used and abused cars and then you get the failures of the motoring public who buy the Morris Marina because it's different and 'exotic'.:- little concern about the way it looked, body roll, the shocking handling, the repair bills, the cabin water ingress, the shaking and rattling, heavy steering ... bucket of bolts on wheels playing car..... an expensive exercise that contributed to the parent's demise (thank goodness).

Do I hear anyone up for the P76?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's right, nearly 99% of the population is straight, so there is plenty of straight influence all around kids as they grow up, not to mention that they will be what they are regardless.
> 
> I can make up any crazy hypothesis that certain things will cause damage, is it up to you to prove me wrong or me to prove what I say is true?
> 
> I mean if your wrong you will cause damage,




The bottom line is this.

In the case of a child being reared by two lesbians, they are saying that fatherhood has no value.

When two male homosexuals raise a child they are saying that motherhood has no value.

Do you think 99% of the population agree with either or both of the above ?

I don't think so.

So keep putting up your PC theories if you like, but you are pretty much out in the cold afaic.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The bottom line is this.
> 
> In the case of a child being reared by two lesbians, they are saying that fatherhood has no value.
> 
> ...




I haven't heard any one say those things, and I certainly don't believe those things.

What I do believe though is it takes a lot more than gender to make a good parent, and strong, supportive family units can come in all shapes and sizes.

I don't think you can say the average gay couple will be any worse (or better) than the average straight couple, there is simply far to many more important variables.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Some people get Rolls Royce parenting, others get the Holden, some used and abused cars and then you get the failures of the motoring public who buy the Morris Marina because it's different and 'exotic'.:- little concern about the way it looked, body roll, the shocking handling, the repair bills, the cabin water ingress, the shaking and rattling, heavy steering ... bucket of bolts on wheels playing car..... an expensive exercise that contributed to the parent's demise (thank goodness).
> 
> Do I hear anyone up for the P76?




Rolls Royce? Holden?

You don't have to be perfect to be the perfect parent!


----------



## sydboy007 (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Gay parenting is when the two parents (or substitute parents) of a household where a child is raised are of the same sex. What more do you want than that ?




A bit like saying the car is red.

Yes we know that there is a red car.  Is it old or new.  Sports, SUV, hatchback?

Nope.

Same with gay parenting.  As you have defined it, we know that the parents are of the same sex raising children.

Are they good parents or bad?  Are they loving or indifferent?

No we don't.

So the term in and of itself is really only useful in providing information on if the parents are the same or opposite sex.  It doesn't even tell us what sex the parents are.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 September 2015)

Tink said:


> I suppose another question is -- what is family?
> 
> If you took an individual out of the context and asked about their family, what would be their answer?
> 
> ...




And if the children have same sex parents they'll talk about both their parents, about their grand parents, if the extended family was born overseas.

As Ghotib has tried to point out, you're not actually showing what is unique about gay parenting except for the fact that the parents are of the same sex.  Except for that, what else would ONLY be true for gay parenting?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I haven't heard any one say those things, and I certainly don't believe those things.
> 
> What I do believe though is it takes a lot more than gender to make a good parent, and strong, supportive family units can come in all shapes and sizes.
> 
> I don't think you can say the average gay couple will be any worse (or better) than the average straight couple, there is simply far to many more important variables.




OK then VC, don't bother having any kids of your own, just squirt into a bottle and give it to a couple of your gay mates, I'm sure they will do just as good a job as you would have.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Except for that, what else would ONLY be true for gay parenting?




It's not a matter of what is TRUE for gay parenting, it's what is FALSE. No father or mother role model, a home environment that will be different to what they will experience when they grow up.

Another example. A white child falls of the back of a ute in the outback, is found and bought up by aboriginals who only speak their own language and don't teach the child anything about the white mans world. How prepared is that child to live with the 98% of the population who are not aboriginal ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> How prepared is that child to live with the 98% of the population who are not aboriginal ?




According to you as long as the child's aboriginal parents are straight, the child should be fine.

What if the owners of the ute were gay parents, and the aboriginals were hetero, is he better with the aboriginals then?

This example shows that there are a lot more important factors than sexuality.

But either way, how are we judging it, are we judging it on quality of life, maybe the child raised in  the bush had a better life, who knows?

The question shows some of your bias, you are assuming a life in the "(heterosexual) white mans world", is superior to all other options.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The question shows some of your bias, you are assuming a life in the "(heterosexual) white mans world", is superior to all other options.




No-one mentioned "superiority", it's a fact that 98% of the population is non aboriginal, as is the white child. He has not been raised with the skills needed to get on in the real world that he is most likely to be living in.


----------



## luutzu (2 September 2015)

What makes a father and what makes a mother? It's more than just genitalia right?

In terms of gender role, or parenting role model... don't think we can assume that gay parents will mean the child is missing out on one gender.

I mean, from the people i saw, the traditional role model of a father-figure (masculine) and mother-figure (feminine, stay at home, cook, clean)... those don't really exists anymore, and in either male or female homosexual couple, aren't there always one who's more "masculine" than the other?

Same as in straight relationship where one is more "tough" than the other, and it's not always the stereotypical male father smoking a pipe and the mother always wearing her apron either.

So in terms of a child missing out a gender appropriate role model if raise by gay parents, I don't think that's such a big issue - if an issue at all.

I mean you can see cases where a perfectly straight father would be doing things that might be normal and metro but to some it's pretty "gay".


In the end, I think children will turn out OK if they are loved by their parents, raised in a loving family. The quirks or styles of whatever material or social inadequacy either parent might have is of no real significance to the child's well being. Yea it'd be nice if all children have parents who are well to do, could take the family out every weekend, could spend all the time after 5PM tutoring them, live in a nice house with a decent yard etc. etc... and be straight too...


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> So in terms of a child missing out a gender appropriate role model if raise by gay parents, I don't think that's such a big issue - if an issue at all.




Easy to say if you don't have to experience it yourself.


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No-one mentioned "superiority", it's a fact that 98% of the population is non aboriginal, as is the white child. He has not been raised with the skills needed to get on in the real world that he is most likely to be living in.




There is nothing stopping a gay couple raising a child with all the skills they need to get on in the real world, what is an example of a skill you are worried they will miss out on?

If the aboriginal family spoke English, lived in the suburbs, had a middle class life style etc, would you still be worried about them raising children?

Are you still saying that a "white mans" family would be better?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There is nothing stopping a gay couple raising a child with all the skills they need to get on in the real world, what is an example of a skill you are worried they will miss out on?




There are things a father gives to a child and things a mother gives to a child, and you said yourself that these are not without value. It's pretty obvious that with gay parents a child will miss out on one or the other. Therefore a gay parent household is sub optimal compared to an equivalent heterosexual household. 



> If the aboriginal family spoke English, lived in the suburbs, had a middle class life style etc, would you still be worried about them raising children?




Their own children ? Obviously not. 



> Are you still saying that a "white mans" family would be better?




Yes, in terms of the "real world" where education, language and work skills are important.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter of what is TRUE for gay parenting, it's what is FALSE. No father or mother role model, a home environment that will be different to what they will experience when they grow up.
> 
> Another example. A white child falls of the back of a ute in the outback, is found and bought up by aboriginals who only speak their own language and don't teach the child anything about the white mans world. How prepared is that child to live with the 98% of the population who are not aboriginal ?




Are you saying you copied 100% the way your parents raised you when raising your own children?  I'm assuming the home environment you have is different to the one you grew up with.

So you believe that children brought up by same sex parents will not have any exposure to the heterosexual world?

Unless you're claiming that same sex couples will only allow their children to meet other same sex parents, will somehow have schools staffed with gay teachers, live in gay towns your Aboriginal raising a white child analogy is not really appropriate.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Unless you're claiming that same sex couples will only allow their children to meet other same sex parents, will somehow have schools staffed with gay teachers, live in gay towns your Aboriginal raising a white child analogy is not really appropriate.




So some kids have to make do with substitute role models, ie teachers etc ?

Would they love the kids as much as parents do ?


----------



## sydboy007 (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So some kids have to make do with substitute role models, ie teachers etc ?
> 
> Would they love the kids as much as parents do ?




Children have role models from all parts of their lives.

They might have a role model from Church, or a sporting hero, or neighbour, extended family member.


----------



## Tisme (2 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> What makes a father and what makes a mother? It's more than just genitalia right?





Estrogen + Testosterone


----------



## Value Collector (2 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Their own children ? Obviously not.
> 
> 
> 
> .




That answer gives away more than you know.


----------



## luutzu (2 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Estrogen + Testosterone




That sounds much better than my whatdoyoucallit 
I really should start reading again.


----------



## trainspotter (2 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Estrogen + Testosterone




Mummy + Daddy 

whatdoyoucallit ... it is a vagina or a penis 

oestrogen
ˈiːstrədʒ(ə)n,ˈɛstrə-
noun: estrogen
any of a group of steroid hormones which promote the development and maintenance of female characteristics of the body. 

testosterone
tɛˈstɒstərəʊn
noun
a steroid hormone that stimulates development of male secondary sexual characteristics, produced mainly in the testes, but also in the ovaries and adrenal cortex.

Celebrate the difference !


----------



## Tink (2 September 2015)

It seems they haven't learnt a thing from history, Rumpole.

All that talk about 'a mother having a strong bond with her children etc' that Julia Gillard gave about the sorry speech, was all just words.

_Many people like to believe the gay rights mantra that children “don’t need both a mum and a dad” so they can feel better about themselves or their associates who have neglected children._

Syd, I don't agree, but then as I have said, I am standing up for traditional Marriage and family. 

Homosexuals still can't adopt in all states, from what I know.

It seems you haven't helped people find their natural parents, and what they go through.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 September 2015)

Tink said:


> It seems they haven't learnt a thing from history, Rumpole.
> 
> All that talk about 'a mother having a strong bond with her children etc' that Julia Gillard gave about the sorry speech, was all just words.
> 
> ...




Tink, your version of traditional marriage is actually a very recent phenomenon.

Marriage has changed over the millennia, and will likely change over the coming millennia if we don't wipe ourselves out.

You ignore the FACT that some of the earliest recorded marriages were for same sex couples.  Only the intolerance of religion has caused this issue to have any controversy.

I see my friends in same sex partnerships with their children that seem happy and well adjusted.  I'd bet you'd not be able to pick the kids out at school.  They're loved and well cared for, certainly having a better life than some of the children of parents around me that get shouted at with abuse that scares me.

Why do same sex parents have to be perfect, but any heterosexual can have any many children as they want?  Over 50000 confirmed reports of child abuse in Australian in 2013, but you seem to be more worried about same sex marriage than this sad fact.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That answer gives away more than you know.




Oh really ?

Please explain.


----------



## Tink (3 September 2015)

Thousands of years, throughout the Western World, is not a recent phenomenon, Syd.

So you keep saying, about this same sex marriage that was happening at that time, how about you enlighten us what else was happening around that time in history.
You blame religion, but it was the Christian influence, that has made where we live, how it is.

If you are talking about step parents and all the others that I have pointed out, where parents should be caring for their own children, rather than leaving it to state care/govt to raise and protect them.
You say homosexuals have been raising children also, so you could put them in the same category with abuse since it all seems to run on the same stats.

As Katy Faust pointed out, that you didn't think much of, if children are in need of repair, by all means, anything would help these children.

As I have said, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals here in Australia.
There is no need to change marriage.


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Thousands of years, throughout the Western World, is not a recent phenomenon, Syd.
> 
> .




Tink, I think the argument is that marriage were supposedly a strategic alliance in past millenia (increasing tribal glue, military, labour, political, economic, keeping the kiddy factory chased while fighting enemies, etc), whereas "love and marriage" is a new concept (five or six generations old in the west). 

I don't know how true that is, but given Juliet topped herself way before a few generations back it is quite plausible and therefore homosexuals can't use the argument that love is the historical glue of marriages.

Certainly the old testament yarns are at least older than Christ and it's fairly clear what civilised society considered acceptable back then: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". there's always the other chestnut : "A son is a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter the rest of her life"........ It could be argued that the Greek toga parties that the homosexuals like parade as historically rooting marriage as their invention (no genetic linkage mind you) didn't survive society for a very good reason.

My argument is that the govt shouldn't give a toss about sexual attraction (and I consider sex can only be via baby making plugs and sockets) and base the union on:

keeping track of incest;
keeping track of family wealth and equitable distribution at death;
keeping track of whereabouts;
creating a family environment that promotes welfare of children, without biased kinship; 
health and welfare of the community;
making man and woman responsible to each other and their children;
establishing a monogamous expectation;
stewardship by state in providing a sense of belonging and wantedness for offspring and documented geneological line of descent.

Of course there are those who subscribe to the Blue Mink "Melting Pot" mantra ... I wonder how that idea worked out.....: I'd hate to be the bugger that got the works from a gay man in that great big "lovin machine"


----------



## sydboy007 (3 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Tink, I think the argument is that marriage were supposedly a strategic alliance in past millenia (increasing tribal glue, military, labour, political, economic, keeping the kiddy factory chased while fighting enemies, etc), whereas "love and marriage" is a new concept (five or six generations old in the west).
> 
> I don't know how true that is, but given Juliet topped herself way before a few generations back it is quite plausible and therefore homosexuals can't use the argument that love is the historical glue of marriages.
> 
> ...




And the bible was happy with kings having multiple wives and hundreds of concubines, which was just a nice way to say sex slaves.  Maybe the mormons are right and polygamy is the will of god?  Even in the days of Jesus polygamy was acceptable.

So the idea of the one man one woman loving marriage is relatively recent since you want to brig biblical times into the discussion.

Marriage is a human concept.  It's not a natural phenomenon.  There were probably other terms used in the past to describe a close physical sexual emotional relationship between 2 or more people.

Stand aside from the religious intolerance, let go of the ick factor, and explain what is unique about same sex parenting.


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh really ?
> 
> Please explain.




I am done with discussing this with you, I have realised that your opinions are based on deep seated perhaps even subconscious stereotyping and you are happy to discriminate based on opinion rather than fact. 



Tink said:


> .
> 
> As Katy Faust pointed out.




If Katy Faust was pro gay marriage, and an advocate for same sex families, would you still be quoting her?

would hearing her opinion have changed your mind?

All you are doing is cherry picking one persons opinion that happens to agree with your pre existing ideas.

You make no attempt to actually seek out the truth, you seek out opinions that go along with yours, and each time you find one, you delude yourself into thinking it is confirmation that you are right, but you fail to take any information that goes against your position as evidence you may be wrong.

Confirmation Bias at its best ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am done with discussing this with you, I have realised that your opinions are based on deep seated perhaps even subconscious stereotyping and you are happy to discriminate based on opinion rather than fact.
> .




Biggest copout ever.

Make veiled suggestions or accusations and then run away.

Gutless wonder.


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Biggest copout ever.
> 
> Make veiled suggestions or accusations and then run away.
> 
> Gutless wonder.




It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.

At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.

I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.
> 
> At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.
> 
> I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.




Well, all I can do is present facts as I see them.

If you believe you have psychiatric abilities at a distance, that is your delusion.

And if you think you can make comments like "underlying discrimination" without presenting evidence of that, and retaining any credibility in this discussion, then that is another delusion you have.

So yes, it's pointless discussing something with a person who is prepared to make accusations without substantiation and runs away when challenged.

However for the record I don't have "staunch anti gay views".

One of the best posters on this forum is gay and I value his opinions more than most.

I just believe that as parents they provide a sub optimal environment for the raising of children. 

Of course there are other sub optimal environments, some worse than gay parents, but I feel no obligation to endorse those situations either.


----------



## Value Collector (3 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, all I can do is present facts as I see them.
> 
> If you believe you have psychiatric abilities at a distance, that is your delusion.
> 
> ...




That's your problem, you take your own opinion and the cherry picked opinions of people that agree with you are being evidence that your opinion is right.

try to learn more about confirmation bias, and learn how to avoid it, until then I am done.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's your problem, you take your own opinion and the cherry picked opinions of people that agree with you are being evidence that your opinion is right.
> 
> try to learn more about confirmation bias, and learn how to avoid it, until then I am done.




I'm afraid confirmation bias is your is your problem too, but you are too caught up in political correctness to see it.

Your arguments are contradictory and crumble when scrutinised, but if you want your delusions and won't listen to people who have been through the experience, that really is your problem.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm afraid confirmation bias is your is your problem too, but you are too caught up in political correctness to see it.
> 
> Your arguments are contradictory and crumble when scrutinised, but if you want your delusions and won't listen to people who have been through the experience, that really is your problem.




So what does it prove if some children from SS parents say they're happy and have no issues about it, while others talk about problems that they experienced?  What if the ones who say they have issues have converted to a religion?  How do you then know what is due to their upbringing and what comes from the anti gay religious dogma?

What do the individual experiences actually tell us about SS parenting that pin points what the differences are to HS parenting?  

Is it fair to blame SS parents if the children suffer being picked on at school because the other kids know they're from a "gay family", or is that a failing of our society to teach children to be more accepting?  Would we blame the parents of a child where one parent was say in a wheel chair, or a burn victim, and the kids were teasing them over this?

What specifically do you believe Katy Faust provides to the debate?  If you can refer to her direct words would be good as that may help us understand why you believe she speaks for all children raised by SS parents.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> What specifically do you believe Katy Faust provides to the debate?  If you can refer to her direct words would be good as that may help us understand why you believe she speaks for all children raised by SS parents.




She is not the only one

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

That's not the only argument, as I've said so many times before.

Are fatherhood and motherhood worthless ?

If so, why is a father and a mother necessary to produce a "natural" child.

They both give something to child rearing that results in an optimal output for children.

It really is up to "alternative" parenting models to prove that they can do as well under equivalent conditions.



> Is it fair to blame SS parents if the children suffer being picked on at school because the other kids know they're from a "gay family", or is that a failing of our society to teach children to be more accepting? Would we blame the parents of a child where one parent was say in a wheel chair, or a burn victim, and the kids were teasing them over this?




No child should be picked on for any reason.


----------



## Tisme (3 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.
> 
> At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.
> 
> I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.




Two things:

1) Rumpole has consistently avoided expressing opposition to homosexuality

2) Tink and Tisme are consistent in their opinions, but not as obstinate as you are in ignoring anecdotal evidences and real data. Bigotry is OK by me, you are the one who is putting some kind of negative on it, in fact you show all the signs of bigotry yourself with you intransigent views.

You have previously resorted to calling me a latent gay in an attempt to cause me anger and ignored the fact that you used gayness as a slur, and to top it off when I reciprocated you deflected rather than embraced the idea and showed some minor hostility ... why is that ?  Now you have resorted to bad mouthing three members because you can't win the argument.

Gay parenting reservations are not predicated on the homo v hetro activities, it is based on the suitability of child rearing. There already exists a preferential skew to mothering V fathering yet we don't see (hetro) fathers rallying their cause for equality or lobbying their local MP for special treatment. This is because common sense and maturity overrides stupidity.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She is not the only one
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court




So let’s see what is uniquely bad about SS parents, from the mouth of babes so to speak.



> “There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.”




Sadly happens with many heterosexual raised children after failed relationships



> “As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”




Similar issues happen within families where parent's are overtly religious or political.  How many children who won’t accept the dogma of their parents beliefs are ostracised from the family?

I'm sure no heterosexual parent has even turned their back on their children.



> I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”
> 
> Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”





Bigotry from parents is not unique to SS parents.  using the fear of the outsider is a great tactic employed by many religions to keep you in the fold.

What are the children of HS parents forced to do beauty pageants?  Similar to props.  Many parents push their children in inappropriate ways.  I speak to so many foreign students studying here doing courses they hate purely because that's what their parents expect and if they chose to do what they enjoy then they'd get no financial help.

What of fathers forcing their sons to play a particular sport so they can relive their glory days?



> “I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.”




Sounds like how a lot of HS religious families operate.  non believers are to be reviled.  Just think of how deeply political people view those from the other side and pass that on to their children.



> “At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.”




Once again, sounds very similar to how many overtly religious HS parents treat their children.



> Robert Oscar …
> 
> “Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, “behind these facades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.”
> 
> He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.




Is this a child blaming their parents for their mistakes?  We don’t have the counter factual of him being raised with HS parents and possibly having a similar desire.  He was older when he re-established contact with his father, so how much was due to being older and wiser himself and how much the influence of his father?



> Katy Faust..
> 
> “When we institutionalize same-sex marriage,” Faust writes, “we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of marriage.”
> 
> “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”




Unless a child is home schooled they are going to interact with both sexes on a very regular basis.  What of poor HS parents working long hours and rarely home to provide their children support.  Wouldn't that be just as detrimental?

I don’t really see that any of these children shine a light on issues that are not replicated within the heterosexual community.  None of them talks about being abused or not being loved.  How much of their opposition is based on religion?  How much is children rebelling against heir parents?


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> You have previously resorted to calling me a latent gay in an attempt to cause me anger and ignored the fact that you used gayness as a slur, and to top it off when I reciprocated you deflected rather than embraced the idea and showed some minor hostility.




I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.

You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.
> 
> You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.




I thought you had gone ?

Is there no peace ?


----------



## Tink (4 September 2015)

Bigot, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, discrimination and all the other words to shut you down.

As I have said to Syd, I am standing up for marriage, families and children.

EQUAL IS MOTHER, FATHER AND THEIR CHILD.

Homosexuals weren't the only ones singled out at the time, that was stopped.
Incest, pedophilia, infanticide, the list goes on.

Katy Faust never said a bad word about homosexuals in her interview, and what she said made sense. imo.
She was shouted down as hateful.
Labor and the Greens are just a pack of hypocrites.
I don't see them standing up for the women in these poor countries that are making babies for these homosexual couples.

Fathers and mothers are both needed, and this stems from the marriage debate and parenting.

Trying to black ban the father all the time is all part of their plan to destroy the family.


----------



## Tisme (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.
> 
> You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.




I don't think you are comfortable at all with your own sexuality and who ever the homosexual it is that is close too you. You are are a self consigned Joan of Arc on a crusade to save him/her and all those of his/her tribe from the evil doers who don't want society to go down your designated path. You even admit that a majority vote to oppose gay marriage will not be of consequence and the cause must go one like day light saving, australian flag and republicanism, little regard for the average person who just wants to be left alone to enjoy whatever good health and trouble frees he/she might have without having catholic guilt sprung on him at every turn.

You bang on about choice versus some abherant genome, that nobody has found, then set about gathering up individuals who practice homosexuality and galvanise them into some kind of Xmen troop with you as Professor X.

You insult your parents and your parent's parents, etc by demeaning an institution that was good enough to umbrella you and your homosexual ward and probably don't even stop to consider the impudence of doing so. Your logic is flawed insofar as you want babies to be reared by homosexuals because they offer the same child services to natural reproductive couples; the model that produces the stigmatised people in the first place.

The choice for gays to participate or not participate in your crusade has been taken away, there is no middle ground, there is no option to escape being tarred with the same brush, you (and many others) are trapping these people and corralling them into a tribe they might not like and taking away their individuality, whereby they are judged, not on their merits, but on their association and all the collusive benefits that come with that; of course you would argue this is a must because of the poor treatment metered out by the majority (strike that you will insist minority which once again defies logic).


----------



## sydboy007 (4 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Bigot, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, discrimination and all the other words to shut you down.
> 
> As I have said to Syd, I am standing up for marriage, families and children.
> 
> ...




No Tink, you're standing up for you religious views on marriage and family.  That is your right.  Others are standing up for at least tolerance, and hopefully eventual acceptance of gays and the progression to understanding that their love is EQUAL to that of the dominant heterosexual community.  Just as the religious had to accept that slavery was wrong, so eventually they will have to accept that the persecution of gays is wrong.

I thought love was equal?

Are you saying that people of your religion now fully accept homosexuals?  Can a gay catholic enter into heaven if they don't accept their homosexuality is a sin?  If no, then homosexuality being singled out hasn't been stopped.

What does incest, paedophilia, infanticide have to do with gay parenting?

You do know some same sex partners are both male ie two daddies


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I thought you had gone ?




i said I was done with discussing the topic with you.


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> I don't think you are comfortable at all with your own sexuality and who ever the homosexual it is that is close too you. You are are a self consigned Joan of Arc on a crusade to save him/her and all those of his/her tribe from the evil doers who don't want society to go down your designated path. You even admit that a majority vote to oppose gay marriage will not be of consequence and the cause must go one like day light saving, australian flag and republicanism, little regard for the average person who just wants to be left alone to enjoy whatever good health and trouble frees he/she might have without having catholic guilt sprung on him at every turn.
> 
> You bang on about choice versus some abherant genome, that nobody has found, then set about gathering up individuals who practice homosexuality and galvanise them into some kind of Xmen troop with you as Professor X.
> 
> ...




if I were gay, I wouldn't have any shame in admitting it, as I said there is nothing wrong with.


Yes, a majority vote to take human rights away from the gay members of our society would not make it right, any more than a majority vote to bring back slavery would make slavery right. You need to do some work to figure out how real world morality works, biblical morality, mob morality etc are all immoral.

How have I demeaned parents?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

> Sounds like how a lot of HS religious families operate. non believers are to be reviled. Just think of how deeply political people view those from the other side and pass that on to their children.




The point really is Syd, do you think such things are good parenting for children or not, regardless of whether practised by HS's or gays ? I don't. If you don't think they are good, then you have a duty to say so without bias towards gays or HS.

Merely making excuses for one group on the basis that the others do it as well is not really acceptable logic.



> I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”
> 
> Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”





I doubt if many or any heterosexuals have children to promote the heterosexual cause. There is no point, we know heterosexuals have children, they do it all the time.

Klein's experience is that she was raised largely as a mobile advertising campaign to promote the lifestyle of a small minority that she later realised that she did not subscribe to. That is pretty blatant child exploitation in my book so why should we not condemn it ? And it's a very poor reason to have children in the first place.


----------



## Tink (4 September 2015)

Well, Brendan O'Neill isn't religious and he agrees with me.

_BRENDAN O'NEILL: It is about becoming part of a community. My problem with the gay marriage debate is that it actually increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it. So the presentation of this as a liberal issue is completely facetious. This is about the state having the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage. Now, the modern state brokers marriage, we know that. It brokers it. It gives you a certificate. It says you’re married, thumbs up, well done. This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years. For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry because what you’re saying is that you will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Gay marriage activists compare themselves  to Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King said, "We do not hate our enemies. We love them". 
The exact opposite is the case of gay marriage activists. The exact opposite.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: What's wrong is the silencing, the sacking of people, the demonisation of people, the harassment of people who have a different view._


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> i said I was done with discussing the topic with you.




Yes, interesting though that you continue the discussion with people who you say are more bigoted than I am.

I think that says more about the standard of your argument than you realise.


----------



## Value Collector (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> interesting though that you continue the discussion with people who you say are more bigoted than I am.
> 
> .




I am not discussing the subject with them, I responded to a comment directed towards me, to clarify a position I had stated earlier.

Same with this comment, this is not part of the discussion which I have ceased with you, I am just responding to a comment you have directed towards me, stop directing comments at me and I will cease having to clarify and correct them.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Same with this comment, this is not part of the discussion which I have ceased with you, I am just responding to a comment you have directed towards me, stop directing comments at me and I will cease having to clarify and correct them.




Oh certainly your Saintliness, no further comments will be aimed in your direction, to save you the embarrassment of not being able to answer them.


----------



## sydboy007 (4 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The point really is Syd, do you think such things are good parenting for children or not, regardless of whether practised by HS's or gays ? I don't. If you don't think they are good, then you have a duty to say so without bias towards gays or HS.
> 
> Merely making excuses for one group on the basis that the others do it as well is not really acceptable logic.
> 
> ...




You are using the 4 children to prove that SS parenting is wrong.  The fact that the same issues occur in HS parenting is irrelevant to the topic?

The point I'm making if the criteria the children have presented is deemed valid to restrict SS marriage, then shouldn't it also be valid for restricting HS marriage?  If you only apply the rules to one group, while another group can continue to do the negative actions, then how is that reasonable in a democracy?

As for Klein, how do we verify the veracity of what she says.  I don't doubt that is how she is feeling, but as has been shown memory is a fickle thing.  Studies show that people who fear / have negative views about blacks when shown a video of a white person doing a robbery saw a black man.

So how does the testimony of children who talk positively of SS parenting affect you views?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...ame-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168



> In what they described as the largest study of its type in the world, University of Melbourne researchers surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing.
> 
> *Lead researcher Doctor Simon Crouch said children raised by same-sex partners scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.
> *
> ...






> Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households.
> 
> "Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families," he said.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's controversial to believe that some men are better nurturers than their wives.  Some wives may be better at fulfilling what are generally considered the domain of the father.



> "Quite often, people talk about marriage equality in the context of family and that marriage is necessary to raise children in the right environment, and that you need a mother and a father to be able to do that, and therefore marriage should be restricted to male and female couples," Dr Crouch said.
> 
> "I think what the study suggests in that context is that actually children can be brought up in many different family contexts, and it shouldn't be a barrier to marriage equality."




http://qz.com/438469/the-science-is...d-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/



> In January, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them concluded that children raised by gay couples faced additional adversity as a result of having same-sex parents. To be considered, each of the studies had to meet established guidelines that accounted for credibility and relevance.






> *It’s also worth noting that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports all different kinds of parents that provide children with a stable home.*




http://www.livescience.com/28079-why-gay-parents-are-awesome.html

2. They nurture the neediest



> *Gay parents are a huge resource for kids awaiting adoption, particularly the neediest cases. In October 2011, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 60 percent of gay and lesbian adoptive parents adopt across races, which is important because minority kids have a tougher time getting out of the foster system. And 25 percent of kids placed with adoptive gay and lesbian parents were older than 3 — also a tough age range to adopt. More than half of the kids had special needs.*
> 
> A 2007 report by the Urban Institute found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the United States would like to adopt. That's a huge number of potential parents, far dwarfing the more than 100,000 adoptable kids stuck in foster care today.




So SS couples in the USA are willing to accept the discarded children from HS parents, willing to take in the minorities, including those with special needs.  What does that say about the heterosexual world?



> 3. They foster tolerance
> 
> Here's an advantage straight from the horse's mouth: Kids raised by gay and lesbian parents say their upbringing taught them open-mindedness and empathy.
> 
> ...




the below is only about 12 pages but well worth a read

https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Griffiths ACP 2 11.pdf


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

So what can you tell by a "survey" ?

 How were the recipients selected, by volunteers ? ie self selection ? That creates a bias that leads to only those who think they will "pass" volunteering for the survey. ie it's not a balanced sample.



> 57
> The Australian Community Psychologist                                                                         Volume 23  No 2
> August  2011
> © The Australian Psychological Society Ltd
> ...




Were the children surveyed or the parents ? 

A lot of these studies survey the parents about the children. The parents are the ones being tested, they know it and they are more likely to give answers that show themselves in a better light. Indeed, the study you quoted says this in its introduction



> *Limitations of this study include the lack of child participants, meaning mothers were speaking on behalf of their children. *Future studies could include using child interviews and gay fathers.




My bolds

The methodology of theses studies has to be examined, not just the conclusions. Going by the one you have quoted, they leave a lot to be desired.

A quick skim of the "study" you quoted , reads like a cheap propaganda exercise for the gay lobby.



> In addition,
> however, they also face struggles due to the
> presence of heterosexism in society.
> Heterosexism is defined as the
> ...






> Participants
> Five lesbian couples
> raising children
> within the greater metropolitan area of Perth,
> ...




Five couples, hardly a big sample size on which to base definite conclusions



> Methodology
> The current study will adopt a
> phenomenological methodological approach in
> which the life experiences of participants and
> ...




So basically, all this study is is five lesbian couples telling "their story", from "their" point of view. Confirmation bias at it's best (or worst).

Sorry, there needs to be some better evidence than that.



> So SS couples in the USA are willing to accept the discarded children from HS parents, willing to take in the minorities, including those with special needs. What does that say about the heterosexual world?




I don't know, apart from the fact that hets are 98% of the population so therefore there is likely to be a bigger rate of unwanted children compared to the gay population. But all the ills you portray on heterosexuals could be exhibited by the gay population. To cast all hets as naughty and all gays as angelic is unrealistic.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 September 2015)

Another quote from Griffith & Pooley 



> During
> the end of the analysis process, member
> checking was used and participants were
> contacted to ensure all information was correct.
> ...




Have these people ever been taught any science procedure at all ?

*THE INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE EXPERIENCE OF HIS/HER SUBJECTS*. They are dispassionate observers and analysers, they do not get involved in what they are studying.

If all the studies are like this one, they contribute nothing towards understanding of the issue.


----------



## Tisme (11 September 2015)

I have been reading a tome on the role genes play in the sense of belonging. It discusses the sense of relatedness and the strong pervasiveness of the absent presence. 

It is very clear than kinship does not guarantee sharing, caring and family and vice versa. Adoptive and donor conceived offspring can and do receive family environments that are positive

One of the observations made, covers the situation of same sex parents and their parents role playing. They were highly aware of the genetic disconnect and it modified their behaviours as family and extended family. 

Grand parents weren't comfortable with the foreign gene pool infiltrating their lineage, but nonetheless they endeavoured to make the child feel like belonging to a family and overtly paraded their solidarity, regardless of the private discomfort... they didn't want the child polarised and didn't want the community to view them as deviant.

Both the parents and the grandparents determinedly played the traditional family form, which is kinda strange really. It's like black man buying a ticket to a KKK bbq and being polite to their traditions. IMO

Another interesting note was when it came to the other gay partner adopting the kid, the bond wasn't necessarily strong enough and the mare/steed bolted.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> It is very clear than kinship does not guarantee sharing, caring and family and vice versa. Adoptive and donor conceived offspring can and do receive family environments that are positive




Nothing guarantees anything, it's a matter of the overall kinship-bonding result; ie is there more likely to be a correlation between kinship and parental caring etc.

I know a fellow who virtually raised two kids of his late wife by a former marriage and one of his own. The step kids have shot through and he doesn't have contact with them, his own child is still at home and well employed in his own job and the property.

I know for a fact that this chap sacrificed a lot to bring up the step kids, but their bonding abilities towards him seems rather deficient.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Nothing guarantees anything, it's a matter of the overall kinship-bonding result; ie is there more likely to be a correlation between kinship and parental caring etc.
> 
> I know a fellow who virtually raised two kids of his late wife by a former marriage and one of his own. The step kids have shot through and he doesn't have contact with them, his own child is still at home and well employed in his own job and the property.
> 
> I know for a fact that this chap sacrificed a lot to bring up the step kids, but their bonding abilities towards him seems rather deficient.




Are you comparing apples with apples?

How old were the step children when he started to be a part of their life?

Can anyone say they truly treat children that they know are not biologically their's exactly the same as ones which are?

I look at my aunt and uncle taking in 3 of the children from a cousin and his wife who are heroine addicts.  The kids have gone from near the bottom of their classes to being near the top.  Admittedly their own children were nearly through high school, but they have melded into a decent extended family.  

Every situation is likely to have different outcomes depending on the children and parents.  We don't have the luxury of seeing what the counter factual may have offered.

In the example you've provided, this was based on a heterosexual setting.  Would you argue that based on this outcome that we should ban "blended" families since the outcomes can be so poor at times?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Are you comparing apples with apples?
> 
> How old were the step children when he started to be a part of their life?




About 6 I think



> Can anyone say they truly treat children that they know are not biologically their's exactly the same as ones which are?




I think there are differences in bonds between biological and non biological children and their parents/carers.




> In the example you've provided, this was based on a heterosexual setting.  Would you argue that based on this outcome that we should ban "blended" families since the outcomes can be so poor at times?




I've said before I'm not about "banning" anything, but people have a right to be interested in what is good or not for children based, among other things, on how we would like to be treated ourselves.

Personally I'll take a good mother and father against two gay mothers or two gay fathers any time.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> About 6 I think
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yes.  We know you always want the gold standard, but then ignore the reality of the world where that's not always an option.

Sometimes it's about what can be, not what we'd like to be.

The info I provided last week where adoptions by gay parents in the USA and how they were more likely to adopt the children "rejected" by the heterosexual world ie the older ones, the ones with disabilities, ones not of the same race.

In that specific real world scenario would you block the children from being accepted into a loving SS parent based family, or do you believe the children would be better off staying in institutionalised care?

The way I see it, if the ones you say would make better parents wont step up, then how can it be good to deny children up for adoption from the love of 2 SS parents that want to raise a child?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> yes.  We know you always want the gold standard, but then ignore the reality of the world where that's not always an option.
> 
> Sometimes it's about what can be, not what we'd like to be.
> 
> ...




The judgement on where the children go should be made on the "best available" standard.

That would include gay parents if the alternative was considered inferior. The decision should be able to be empirically justifiable if it was publicly questioned.


----------



## Tisme (16 November 2015)

poignant advert: 





and

http://distractify.com/news/2015/11...ever-tell-me-the-odds?utm_content=inf_11_53_2


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> poignant advert:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I can't see either of them rescuing the helpless Princess Leia.


----------

