Islamic Wife beating

[SeVeR]

A child with one parent is one step closer to having no-one who cares.

[Bak]

You really haven't heard of research showing people without one of their parent figures have a harder time in life?

Yeah, but comparing what happens to divorced parents is not necessarily the same as what happens with homosexual parents.

 

A child with one parent is one step closer to having no-one who cares.

A child with homosexual parents still has two parents.

[NBVegita]

Astro:

 

"If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county, or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place."

 

Being that 17 states, and almost every county I can google shows up with those laws, it covers just about all gays.

 

Bak:

 

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/june/0606marriage.html

 

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=...tegoryid=family

 

http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Arc..._update_408.htm

 

There will constantly be studies that prove and disprove, in fact there is a huge study that disproves a lot of the homosexual studies:

 

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

[SeVeR]

There is so much rubbish going around about how a "family-unit" is required for turning kids into civilised adults, citing data about how single-parent families don't do as well at raising kids. The only thing you can draw from those studies is that a child with one parent has a greater chance of having no parents who love him/her. They say absolutely nothing about any beneficial effects of having two parents.

 

A child with homosexual parents still has two parents.

True, what's your point?

 

Homosexual or heterosexual, the most important factor by far is whether the child is loved. So the sexuality of the parents matters incredibly little in my eyes. Unless you think the child will be "contaminated" with homosexuality, but being a homosexual doesn't make you a criminal, a re!@#$%^&*, or a street-walking druggie. Homosexuals are still loving people, they just love different people in different ways.

[ThunderJam]

To that I say 1) The homophobic Christian parents who tell their kids that homosexuals are !@#$%^&*ed to eternal !@#$%^&*ation are breeding this teasing to a large extent

Sigh, why do i even bother.

 

As to the difference of homosexual parents and divorced parents, I think you were missing what I meant to say. I was saying, SOME of the negative influence of divorce, at least in SOME cases, comes from the lack of one of the genders of parents being active in the childs life. Sure trauma effects the child, maybe moving from parent to parent affects the child, but one of the factors, at least in some cases that causes negative affects for the child is a lack of a father or mother figure. All im saying is that for a kid who has two fathers, he obviously has teh same lack of a mother figure. I'm not saying he CANT GROW UP WELL then, I'm sure theres plenty of homosexual parents who could raise a child well, but I think that not having one of the gender-based parental figures can cause some problems.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro:

 

"If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county, or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place."

 

Being that 17 states, and almost every county I can google shows up with those laws, it covers just about all gays.

 

I'm not sure how many of the counties you have checked, but an actual figure would be nice. Maybe a cool map.

 

Sigh' date=' why do i even bother.[/quote']

Who knows.

 

As to the difference of homosexual parents and divorced parents' date=' I think you were missing what I meant to say. I was saying, SOME of the negative influence of divorce, at least in SOME cases, comes from the lack of one of the genders of parents being active in the childs life. Sure trauma effects the child, maybe moving from parent to parent affects the child, but one of the factors, at least in some cases that causes negative affects for the child is a lack of a father or mother figure. All im saying is that for a kid who has two fathers, he obviously has teh same lack of a mother figure. I'm not saying he CANT GROW UP WELL then, I'm sure theres plenty of homosexual parents who could raise a child well, but I think that not having one of the gender-based parental figures can cause some problems.[/quote']

Having parents with both genders present makes little difference. The child needs to see two adults in a healthy relationship and have the time with at least one parent that having twice the parents provides. Kids with 2 parents that work all day, but are in a functioning relationship have problems too. Then again, unless one of us gets some actual studies here to back up our claims, we're both just giving our opinions and you're the one trying to prove gay couples make for crappy parenting so I don't feel the need to bother.

Edited November 24, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[ThunderJam]

I have begun to notice that teh cry for proof is somewhat onesided. Astro you and the others on your side of the debates tend to demand proof way more than nbv, myself, our our side demands it. It's not a one way thing. It's not like you are defending an established fact, and asking for proof that contradicts it. You are saying debatable stuff to, and usually not providing proof. So, yes i understand you (and nbv and myself) dont wanna go write a friggin research paper to post on an online forum for a 2d space game, but don't try to condemn us for not providing proof when you don't provide much either.

[AstroProdigy]

On this issue if you want to make the claim that homosexual parents would be worse than heterosexual parents you need proof. I don't need to find proof to disprove your claim. Of course my opinion on homosexual parents is an opinion too, but as long as you don't find proof for yours it is no more valid than mine. If you don't want to find proof for your claim there's no reason for you to do so, but if you try to p!@#$%^&* it off as a fact no one will buy it. Edited November 24, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

My biggest concern is the fact, as it is listed in some of the articles I posted, that some, not all, children have tougher childhoods because they are either ashamed or antagonized for having gay parents. I've never once said that they would be maladjusted criminals. The fact that they are more likely to have a homosexual experiment is not necessarily bad, but its not good either.

 

As for astro, just google county discrimination laws, and go through page by page by page. I'll not flood the forum with thousandss of links to all of the thousands of counties discrimination laws.

[Bak]

A child with homosexual parents still has two parents.

True, what's your point?

read the fricken quote right above what I said if you don't know what the point was.

 

 

also, all of those sources you posted are Christian websites... which I claim are biased (if homosexuality is a sin they would NEVER post a study saying homos do better at raising kids). It's actually kinda weird that they are responses to other studies showing that homosexuals actually do a better job at raising kids (I didn't know that).

 

 

Also, the reason one side is asked to provide evidence is that the policy change is banning homos from adopting. Usually if you want to cause change you need to provide the evidence for it, as change of the sake of change doesn't usually fly.

[SeVeR]

Christ Bak, you seem to switch between talking to different people within one post, with no indication you've switched. It's hard to keep up, i've not posted any sources to Christian websites, who are you tlaking to now? NBV? TJ?

[Bak]

i'm talking to the one person who posted any sources, although i'll try to be a bit more verbose in the future about who i'm responding to.

[NBVegita]

The PDF was not religious, and the pdf discounts many of the studies that show that homosexuals make just as good parents.

 

As I stated you will find sources on both sides, but as the evidence is inconclusive on either side, the fact that I stated "Being there have been studies showing that both a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development" I have supported my statement, with studies, and thus have done my part to support my argument.

 

Also if you discount studies by religious organizations, then I would say you must discount studies by pro-gay organizations for the same reasons.

[SeVeR]

Being there have been studies showing that both a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development

The studies do not prove that single parent families, where the one present parent is loving and nurturing, are any worse than two parent families where the same is true. They also do not prove that a male and a female presence, above that of two male or two female parents, is necessary either. It's just a complete load of misinformation.

 

Simply put, if there's an % chance of a parent being loving and nurturing, then a two-parent family (of no specific sexuality) has a 96% chance of providing a loving parent to a child. A single parent family has % chance. That's all it is. That explains the data.

 

Trying to come to the conclusion that the sexuality of the parents is paramount is ridiculous because there is no basis of comparison for gay families. Coming to the conclusion that a single parent family guarantees an increased state of disfunctionality is equally ridiculous.

[NBVegita]

They also do not prove that a male and a female presence, above that of two male or two female parents, is necessary either.

 

"Most "gay parenting" studies compare children in lesbian households with children in heterosexual, single-mother households. The only major study1 to directly compare children raised in married, single-parent and same-sex households was published by the journal Children Australia, and it revealed that, "Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples." "

 

"Thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you are doing to protect children from being placed in homosexual households. I spent part of my teenage years living with my mother and her female lover. It was a heartbreaking and disturbing experience to say the least. The needs of the children MUST be placed before the desires of adults. Throughout my life, the most well-balanced and successful people I encounter come from healthy, loving, traditional families. I wish I did too!"

 

I mean I could keep quoting every article I posted. But that is why I posted them, so you can read them.

 

There is no conclusive evidence, I have admitted that, but there is evidence that supports my claim. So until you can disprove my claims and or my sources you cannot say I am wrong. Ironically being there is not conclusive evidence, you cannot do so, so this argument is over until conclusive evidence can be presented.

[ThunderJam]

I don't think we've yet to address this, which is odd.

 

If you all say homosexuality is so natural, why can't we produce offspring that way? That fact that we need a man and women to create a child seems to scream natural and normal to me...

[AstroProdigy]

Natural experiences don't necessarily have to directly result in child bearing. It happens naturally, but as long as heterosexuality happens more often and often enough it doesn't matter. Last time I checked we're overpopulating the planet and screwing it up massively and at the same time there are million and millions of kids with no one to turn to. Homosexuals provide a needed relief for adoption while at the same time not contributing to overpopulation (for the most part some can be artificially impregnated). If anything it's the people espousing birth control, abortions, and condoms are wrong and evil that are a threat to our society.

[NBVegita]

There are currently about 300,000 eligable kids for adoption, and over 1.5 million heterosexual couples trying to adopt right now.

 

Our adoption system is so stingent that well adjusted and financially stable couples are adopting from other countries because its the only way they can get a child without having to wait years for it.

[SeVeR]

It's interesting you bring up adoption. Gay parents have to adopt, so surely the studies you quoted could be interpreted as a case against adoption rather than a case against homosexual parents.... thus making the studies irrelevent.

[Bak]

The PDF was not religious

The PDF was constructed by the Marriage Law Project (first page), which a quick google search reveals is done by the Catholic University of America.

 

 

As I stated you will find sources on both sides, but as the evidence is inconclusive on either side, the fact that I stated "Being there have been studies showing that both a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development" I have supported my statement, with studies, and thus have done my part to support my argument.

mm, I think there's a misunderstanding here. Even if we assume the evidence is inconclusive on both sides, that does not support your statement. Even if the studies were conclusive in saying that same-sex parenting is terrible, that does not imply that multi-sex parenting is good ("a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development").

 

 

Also if you discount studies by religious organizations, then I would say you must discount studies by pro-gay organizations for the same reasons.

Yes I agree here. We need independent sources, or, at least, less biased ones.

 

 

If you all say homosexuality is so natural, why can't we produce offspring that way?

worker bees don't produce offspring, yet they handle many of the offspring related tasks such as moving eggs around and feeding larvae.

[NBVegita]

It's interesting you bring up adoption. Gay parents have to adopt, so surely the studies you quoted could be interpreted as a case against adoption rather than a case against homosexual parents.... thus making the studies irrelevent.

 

lol? The only case you could present would be against GAY adoption, not adoption in general. lol?

 

The PDF, posted on Marriage watch is a copy of a report written by two non-biased scientists. Simply because a report is posted on a religious site does not make it religious.

 

Even if the studies were conclusive in saying that same-sex parenting is terrible, that does not imply that multi-sex parenting is good

 

I suggest you actually read those articles where in some of them it implicitly states that heterosexual parents are better for children.

 

I'll just requote myself for one instance:

 

"Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples."

 

Why ask me to post sources if you don't bother to read them.

[SeVeR]

It depends on the details of the survey. I don't have time to read it, but if they just compared homosexual parents to heterosexual parents with no consensus on adoption (i.e. not all the heterosexual parents in the survey were adoptive parents) then we could say that adoption is the cause of the homosexual parents being worse, and that the heterosexual parents would have been no different if they were all adoptive parents. Understand?

[Bak]

I suggest you actually read those articles where in some of them it implicitly states that heterosexual parents are better for children.

Give me a quote that isn't along the lines of, "it's common sense that a male and a female raises better children" or "gays have more STDs and AIDS!!!! not HIV but full blown AIDS!".

 

something along the lines of "we took 50 gay couples raising children and 50 straight couples and the children of the gay pplz were 25% more likely to go to prison" would shut me up.

 

also, the pdf is not a copy of a report done somewhere else simply hosted on a catholic site, it's actually done by the marriage law project (it's written in the pdf). Also 3/5 of the authors worked for the marriage law project (from the about the authors section).

[NBVegita]

Why ask me to post sources if you don't bother to read them.

[SeVeR]

1. I didn't ask for sources.

2. I really don't have time to read papers on sociology when i'm doing a physics phd.

3. i made a simple point, and if you've read the paper then you'll be able to counter accordingly without me having read it.

4. You're beginning to make me think i've pointed out a serious flaw in your source.