Gay parenthood

[Jeremy Taylor]

The FRC is a hate group. They could tell me the sky is blue. I would still dismiss them.

Well, apart from the absurdity of that statement (it is the hallmark of the hard left SPLC), of course the reason you think that it is hate group is precisely of its views on issues like homosexual parenting. So, you're argument is question begging. You argue in favour of homosexual parenting by dismissing anything that does not agree with homosexual parenting. Well done.:clap

You're the one making assertions and providing faulty sources.

Which assertions? You were the one who said that the studies were outdated and discredited, yet you have shown nothing to back this up.

As I said, your dismissal of that source is blatantly fallacious: it simply is a dogmatic refusal even to consider opposing viewpoints. You do not even attempt to deal with the fact that the part I was referring to, at the beginning, is essentially just drawn from other sources, ones that you can hardly dismiss.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

*yawn*
What fallacies do you claim I am committing?
Be specific, because merely whining about fallacies doesn't cut it.

Well, it is obviously a material fallacy. What you are saying is you refuse to take seriously opposing viewpoints. I would say that this involves a number of fallacies. One is question begging, of course. You are essentially saying you are right and refuse to even countenance opposing viewpoints. It is also, I think, an example of the genetic fallacy, because you are attacking the source and not what it says. Of course, the exact name of the fallacy is not important. Material, as opposed to formal, fallacies are somewhat inexact, anyway. The point is, that instead of playing the ball, you are playing the man: instead of actually refuting the relevant points - which are not witness testimony but sourced and argued for propositions - you are attacking the source. This is clearly fallacious.

I noticed you didn't reply to my points, like the fact the part I was referring to was largely about other sources, like the official statement of the American Psychological Association.

Like Viker and many other oh so enlightened posters on this thread, it is clear your mind is shut to opposing positions and you are just engaging in rhetoric and sophistry to try, rather unconvincingly, to avoid having to deal with opposing viewpoints. Or, in other words, you are engaged in bigotry.

 

[Viker]

lolz... We could go round an round. Would it be fallacious an bigoted of me to dismiss the KKK and their slanted position? Because I do.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

lolz... We could go round an round. Would it be fallacious an bigoted of me to dismiss the KKK and their slanted position? Because I do.

Depends. It would be fallacious for you to argue you against them by just dismissing them. That is the point. It is true that not all sources can be trusted and not all can be reviewed in the specific situation in which an argument occurs. But here, this is the only source, it is well written and sourced, and it is not the whole source I'm asking you to consider, but only the beginning part which mostly consists of quoting from other studies. Not only do you dismiss the source, but you refuse to give any proper reasons for doing so based on the specific arguments in the source. This is clearly fallacious.

 

[Viker]

Depends. It would be fallacious for you to argue you against them by just dismissing them. That is the point.

I don't think everyone opposed to gay parenting is a hate monger, btw. I was pointing out that articles cited sources.

 

[McBell]

Well, it is obviously a material fallacy. What you are saying is you refuse to take seriously opposing viewpoints. I would say that this involves a number of fallacies. One is question begging, of course. You are essentially saying you are right and refuse to even countenance opposing viewpoints. It is also, I think, an example of the genetic fallacy, because you are attacking the source and not what it says. Of course, the exact name of the fallacy is not important. Material, as opposed to formal, fallacies are somewhat inexact, anyway. The point is, that instead of playing the ball, you are playing the man: instead of actually refuting the relevant points - which are not witness testimony but sourced and argued for propositions - you are attacking the source. This is clearly fallacious.

I noticed you didn't reply to my points, like the fact the part I was referring to was largely about other sources, like the official statement of the American Psychological Association.

Like Viker and many other oh so enlightened posters on this thread, it is clear your mind is shut to opposing positions and you are just engaging in rhetoric and sophistry to try, rather unconvincingly, to avoid having to deal with opposing viewpoints. Or, in other words, you are engaged in bigotry.

what a big steaming pile of bull ****

When you are able to discuss the matter without all your strawman dictations, please be so kind as to let me know.

As for your linked Family Research Council article goes, yes, I did read it.
No, it did not impress me.
It was nothing more than a homophobe counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

any jack *** can google a topic and then right an article that is nothing more than a ratification of their already bigoted opinion.

That you prefer to dictate to me what I think, believe, etc. reveals much more about you than it does about me.

 

[SoulDaemon]

What I meant is that, unfortunately, some gay men (a small percentage) are misogynists.
Two gay parents are supposed to talk to their10 year old son about women. And they are supposed to tell him that women are wonderful creatures, who deserve respect, blah blah.
But if the gay parent in question is a misogynist, it is unavoidable that he will talk about women negatively. Or sometimes...in a moment of anger, he may call women names.

what if the kid in question grows up thinking that women are wicked?

And how about the single women and men, are ya freaking serious? and what about the so called perfect families with both parents, are ya kidding me!!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

what a big steaming pile of bull ****

When you are able to discuss the matter without all your strawman dictations, please be so kind as to let me know.

As for your linked Family Research Council article goes, yes, I did read it.
No, it did not impress me.
It was nothing more than a homophobe counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

any jack *** can google a topic and then right an article that is nothing more than a ratification of their already bigoted opinion.

That you prefer to dictate to me what I think, believe, etc. reveals much more about you than it does about me.

There is, of course, absolutely no substance in this post of yours. In fact, despite the fact you apparently have medals for debating here, there has been zero substance to any of your responses to my comments in this thread. Have you ever thought of investing in an introductory logic or critical thinking textbook? It might help you discern between rhetoric (and rather poor rhetoric at that) and actual argumentation.

Not anyone can write an article well and source it well.

But, of course, you are not a bigot!

 

[psychoslice]

Most gays that I have meet are beautiful people, I think they would make beautiful parents, showing the so called straits how its all done.

 

[Thruve]

I don't even think articles are necessary.
Personally, just from experience, I think lesbian couples are more capable of parenting than male couples. Of course, a male couple which children doesn't always mean the children aren't going to be raised well, but naturally one male is going to play the motherly role, and to me a female is always best suited for that role than a male, hands down, booty up.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Always" is a strong word. It may even technically apply, but people do not exist on a vaccuum.

Being gay or straight, male or female... not of those attributes nor any combination of same implies any specific level of competency at child-raising, I think. The actual ability will be determined largely by the life experience and personality of the raisers.

For that reason, because there is hardly a good consequence to be conceived on denying same sex couples raising rights, and because we have so far failed at stopping incompetent hetero couples from raising their own biological children, I just can't think of a reason to deny same sex couples those rights.

 

[dust1n]

What I meant is that, unfortunately, some gay men (a small percentage) are misogynists.
...

what if the kid in question grows up thinking that women are wicked?

Sometimes heterosexual couples are misogynists.

 

[dgirl1986]

You repeated I believe in science, or something similar, as if science solved all issues. You didn't really show much awareness of what science really is or its limitations. Science cannot be offered up as some sort of holistic view of reality without argument.

Not really. It depends on what is important in the context of human live.

I think you misunderstand me. I was just being silly. Kind of like when you respond with "I like cheese" when something makes no sense and sounds random.

What do think is my understanding of science? THe word holistic makes me cringe, maybe because of its alternative medicine connotations.

 

[dgirl1986]

Just a thought...

The kids are all right

 

[The Hammer]

Just a thought...

The kids are all right

Aaaaaannnd.... This debate has been won.

Not that anyone else will care and I will be called out for agreeing with the research. Whatever. This debate has been giving me a headache, just trying to catch back up.

 

[dgirl1986]

Aaaaaannnd.... This debate has been won.

Not that anyone else will care and I will be called out for agreeing with the research. Whatever. This debate has been giving me a headache, just trying to catch back up.

This was established ages ago. I was trying to find the AMA (Australian Medical Association) article but I think it pointed back to APA anyway.