Gay parenting

[SirRumpole]

. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.