LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

The answer to the question is four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg.

The sole purpose of proposition 8 is to prevent same sex marriage.
Claiming that it doe snot ban same sex marriage does not change the fact that it does.

Symmantecs are why criminals walk free even if they can prove they are guilty.

The ENTIRE juduicial system is symmantecs. If you say things in a negative connotation it's going to get bucked, But if you say things in a "positive" light it won't get bucked.

 

[McBell]

Symmantecs are why criminals walk free even if they can prove they are guilty.

The ENTIRE juduicial system is symmantecs. If you say things in a negative connotation it's going to get bucked, But if you say things in a "positive" light it won't get bucked.

The sole purpose of proposition 8 is to prevent same sex marriage.
Claiming that it does not ban same sex marriage does not change the fact that it does.

Seems you merely want to quibble over direct and indirect.

 

[Starfish]

Some interesting links: ALL concerning potential risks and complications purposely placed into a child's life.

glennsacks.com | Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Heterosexual Parents Bad


Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents' perspective 13-18 years later -- Scheib et al. 18 (5): 1115 -- Human Reproduction (Concerning sperm donation)
"The children (average age at study almost 10 years) described the donor as someone outside their family, and in neutral terms (e.g. ‘father [only] in a biological sense’, ‘a donor or unknown man’, p. 2021). The children were almost equally divided on whether or not they wanted more information about the donor. (The authors note, however, that more children may have actually wanted information about the donor, but loyalty toward their parents, especially the non-genetic mother, may have inhibited them from saying so.) Thus overall, their responses suggest more of a neutral and curious attitude than one of negativity.
In contrast to results from studies with children, a study of adults who had been conceived through DI suggests that they have difficulties with their origins (Turner and Coyle, 2000 ). Problems included feeling negatively distinct from one’s family, mistrust of family, a sense of abandonment by the donor and DI practitioners, and frustration and feelings of loss because of the lack of information about and access to their donor (see also Snowden et al., 1983 ; Baran and Pannor, 1993 ; reviewed in Blyth, 2002 ). These findings are critical and ground-breaking. They may also not be representative of feelings of DI youth and adults in general. The study sample was small (16 individuals) and had been recruited through DI support networks, thus potentially biasing the sample toward those with negative experiences and a need for support. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, participants discovered their origins as adults and often in difficult circumstances (e.g. divorce or death). In contrast, it is likely that learning of one’s origins early on (e.g. pre-school), in positive circumstances and with donor information readily available, will help to dispel many of the negative feelings experienced by Turner and Coyle’s study participants. "


The Ultimate Reunion: When Dad Is a Sperm Donor - Oprah Show Recap

FOXNews.com - Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. Were one to appeal to authority on gay marriage rights, of course I could point to the actions of 39 state legislatures and supreme courts and three of the seven California Supreme Court Justices who agree with me.

Last time I checked, 4 was greater than 3.

And what bearing do the actions of state legislatures outside California have on California-specific law?

The reality is rights don't appear by fiat simply on the opinions of four people. Rights need to be the product of the citizenry: people need to be involved in the legal parameters of their society. It should not be imposed from above.

And these rights did not appear by "fiat". They appeared based on the application of the democratically-ratified California State Constitution. To disregard the State Constitution would be making things appear (or in this case, disappear) by fiat.

The will of the majority is present in the California Constitution and that will does not speak to any gay marriage right. Pretending there is a gay marriage right in the California Constitution is either disingenuousness, an agenda or ignorance on display.

Same-sex marriage is addressed by the California Constitution just as much as strangulation is in criminal law, even though you likely won't find the word "strangulation" anywhere in the law itself. When the law covers a high-level concept, it implicitly covers all lower-level applications of that concept.

There is no right to drivers licenses in the California Constitution.

No, but like same-sex marriage, there is the responsibility in the California Constitution for the California state government to dole out the privilege of drivers licences on equal terms if it chooses to give the privilege to some citizens or groups of citizens.

Per ability to actually operate a car there is no marked difference between men and women. They are "similarly situated". There are marked differences in performance both in gender and age which is why insurance rates vary based on gender and age. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are not similarly situated. One can make people the other cannot.

And again, not all heterosexual marriages can or will produce children. In that regard, a same-sex marriage is similiarily situated with a marriage between an infertile heterosexual couple.

This is my statement you replied to: "That would depend on the state. In Western Europe up until the mid-Nineteenth Century there were fair numbers of children without parents, either through death or some other issue that lived on the margins of society. In Sub-Saharan Africa today this same issue persists." It is not an exclusive claim. "Death or some other issue" per the conjunction, means other factors also can lead to the absence of parents. I also mentioned abandonment. This was my further posting: "You asked about feral children, I explained this applies to children on the margins of society. Commensurate with a marriage contract, parents are identified and held responsible from their children. Absent this legal protocol children may be abandoned etc. as has happened historically and thus left to no one's care." The idea doesn't turn on death, but absence.

It's also based on the idea that parents are identified by marriage and not by parentage itself, which to me seems absurd.

Increasing home ownership may very well be the goal. The point is the existence of a state benefit for a thing is not the same as the existence of that thing. If the state places a value on X it does not in the valuing necessarily create the X. The reason for the value may be to increase the amount of X or stymie its decrease.

- if the state institutes a home owner benefit in order to increase the number of home owners in some area from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000, the demonstrated vested interest is in the 500,000, not the 1,000,000.

- if the state institutes a home owner benefit to prevent the number of home owners from dropping from 1,000,000 to 800,000, the demonstrated vested interest is in the 200,000, not the 800,000.

Any government policy or benefit that, at its core, says "we approve of what you're doing and want you to keep doing it, despite the fact that you'd do it no matter what" is a bad policy. It's a waste of money, effort and liberty (since every law represents some constraint on liberty, however small) on a program with no purpose whatsoever.

I think I've been quite clear. I've stated several times this basic point.

You've stated that you consider more citizens to be a benefit for its own sake. You haven't adequately explained why you believe this to be so.

A budget deficit means at a base level more is spent than is taken in. The way to solve the issue to spend less or take in more. Regardless, tax payers are the base, by and through which, government revenues are taken in. More tax payers increases the tax base.

And increase the demand on services at the same time. Citizens represent a source of revenue to government, but they also represent the costs a government incurs. Try again: why would more citizens always be a good thing for a government's coffers?

Personally, I think immigration is a good thing.

Cool.

No. the idea that whether the state demonstrates an interest or not. The state has a demonstrable interest.

The state has a demonstrable interest in ensuring that the Capitol Building doesn't fall down. Should it be structurally reinforced regardless of whether the need to do so exists?

I'm not sure I understand your comment, particularly what you underlined. When the state demonstrates an interest that interest may be to increase a thing or stop the decrease of a thing. Regardless the interest does not necessarily create the thing interested in.

My point is that the purpose of government laws and actions is to create desired effects for society, not to endorse what the government as some sort of entity considers to be good or bad. When measuring the effect of some action, we look at the difference between what happens when the action happens versus what happens without it. Anything that's common to both is not an effect of that action.

It does not fulfil any valid purpose of government for it to declare through it's laws that they approve or disapprove of some way of life compared to others for its own sake.

This is not correct. If someone marries they can be held responsible for all children of the household independent of physical parenthood.

So... let's see what you're saying: in cases where a child is raised by a couple that includes at least one parent who's not biologically related to the child in question, marriage helps to foster responsibility and a stable family environment, which is beneficial to society by reducing the number of feral children.

The bizarre nature of the "feral children" argument aside, this seems like a check mark in the same-sex marriage column. After all, the feral children who are products of opposite-sex marriages in the normal way are already protected by child abandonment laws that are linked to parenthood. It seems that it's those poor feral children from homes where one of the parents isn't biologically related to the child are the ones who would benefit from this sort of measure.

I can see the bumper stickers now: "Vote 'No' on Proposition 8: think of the feral children!"

 

[Orontes]

Really?
Then why is abortion legal?

Because of the Supreme Courts' ruling in Roe v. Wade which is another illustration of Judicial overreach and a good example of the societal chaos that erupts when law/rights are not based on popular will.

Do you disagree with this idea: "Laws and rights claims need to reflect popular will not the penchants of the few alone" ?[/quote]

The sole purpose of proposition 8 is to prevent same sex marriage.
Claiming that it doe snot ban same sex marriage does not change the fact that it does.

Is it your idea that a marriage is only a marriage if recognized by the state so that any religious marriage ceremony isn't actually a marriage ceremony? If so, I understand your idea, but I don't think all would agree. The purpose of Proposition 8 is to overturn the California Supreme Court's declaration that there is a right to homosexual marriage.

 

[Starfish]

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
Among the findings cited by the authors:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."


(Source: The Los Angeles Times, "Professors Take Issue With Gay-Parenting Research," April 27, 2001, and "Report: Kids of Gays More Empathetic," by David Crary, National Writer, Associated Press)



http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/5/1115

 

[Autodidact]

I don't understand. Are you saying people get arrested if they marry? "

Well they would certainly get into trouble if they filed their tax returns that way.

 

[Starfish]

More:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

 

[Magic Man]

Is it your idea that a marriage is only a marriage if recognized by the state so that any religious marriage ceremony isn't actually a marriage ceremony?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course, no one is going to deny that homosexuals can get married, if it's not acknowledged by the state. Why are you twisting the argument? The point is that homosexuals should be able to get married and receive the legal benefits that all married couples do. That requires the state to recognize their marriages. So, any argument about this topic is obviously directed at the idea of the government recognizing those marriages.

 

[Autodidact]

Symmantecs are why criminals walk free even if they can prove they are guilty.

Really? Can you think a single instance of a criminal walking free because of symmantecs?

 

[MoonWater]

Some interesting links: ALL concerning potential risks and complications purposely placed into a child's life.

glennsacks.com | Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Heterosexual Parents Bad


Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents' perspective 13-18 years later -- Scheib et al. 18 (5): 1115 -- Human Reproduction (Concerning sperm donation)
"The children (average age at study almost 10 years) described the donor as someone outside their family, and in neutral terms (e.g. ‘father [only] in a biological sense’, ‘a donor or unknown man’, p. 2021). The children were almost equally divided on whether or not they wanted more information about the donor. (The authors note, however, that more children may have actually wanted information about the donor, but loyalty toward their parents, especially the non-genetic mother, may have inhibited them from saying so.) Thus overall, their responses suggest more of a neutral and curious attitude than one of negativity.
In contrast to results from studies with children, a study of adults who had been conceived through DI suggests that they have difficulties with their origins (Turner and Coyle, 2000 ). Problems included feeling negatively distinct from one’s family, mistrust of family, a sense of abandonment by the donor and DI practitioners, and frustration and feelings of loss because of the lack of information about and access to their donor (see also Snowden et al., 1983 ; Baran and Pannor, 1993 ; reviewed in Blyth, 2002 ). These findings are critical and ground-breaking. They may also not be representative of feelings of DI youth and adults in general. The study sample was small (16 individuals) and had been recruited through DI support networks, thus potentially biasing the sample toward those with negative experiences and a need for support. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, participants discovered their origins as adults and often in difficult circumstances (e.g. divorce or death). In contrast, it is likely that learning of one’s origins early on (e.g. pre-school), in positive circumstances and with donor information readily available, will help to dispel many of the negative feelings experienced by Turner and Coyle’s study participants. "


The Ultimate Reunion: When Dad Is a Sperm Donor - Oprah Show Recap

FOXNews.com - Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Thought I'd highlight some other key points in the paragraph you quoted. Afraid this doesn't seem to help your position. Neither does your first link as it is an editorial about a book that claims lesbian parents are better than heterosexual parents. We are not making such claims. We are merely claiming that they do EQUALLY well. Also an episode of Oprah Isn't exactly corroborating evidence. Would you want me to draw conclusions about heterosexual families based on Jerry springer? And an article about a sperm donor being made to pay child support says nothing for the parenting skills of lesbian parents in general nor does it give adequate info(as it's ONE case) to draw the conclusion that most or even any other sperm donors will have to deal with these sorts of issues. Sorry but none of this supports your position Star.

 

[Autodidact]

Some interesting links: ALL concerning potential risks and complications purposely placed into a child's life.

glennsacks.com | Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Heterosexual Parents Bad


Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents' perspective 13-18 years later -- Scheib et al. 18 (5): 1115 -- Human Reproduction (Concerning sperm donation)
"The children (average age at study almost 10 years) described the donor as someone outside their family, and in neutral terms (e.g. ‘father [only] in a biological sense’, ‘a donor or unknown man’, p. 2021). The children were almost equally divided on whether or not they wanted more information about the donor. (The authors note, however, that more children may have actually wanted information about the donor, but loyalty toward their parents, especially the non-genetic mother, may have inhibited them from saying so.) Thus overall, their responses suggest more of a neutral and curious attitude than one of negativity.
In contrast to results from studies with children, a study of adults who had been conceived through DI suggests that they have difficulties with their origins (Turner and Coyle, 2000 ). Problems included feeling negatively distinct from one’s family, mistrust of family, a sense of abandonment by the donor and DI practitioners, and frustration and feelings of loss because of the lack of information about and access to their donor (see also Snowden et al., 1983 ; Baran and Pannor, 1993 ; reviewed in Blyth, 2002 ). These findings are critical and ground-breaking. They may also not be representative of feelings of DI youth and adults in general. The study sample was small (16 individuals) and had been recruited through DI support networks, thus potentially biasing the sample toward those with negative experiences and a need for support. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, participants discovered their origins as adults and often in difficult circumstances (e.g. divorce or death). In contrast, it is likely that learning of one’s origins early on (e.g. pre-school), in positive circumstances and with donor information readily available, will help to dispel many of the negative feelings experienced by Turner and Coyle’s study participants. "


The Ultimate Reunion: When Dad Is a Sperm Donor - Oprah Show Recap

FOXNews.com - Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Did you have a point? If so, what is it?

And Starfish, in the interest of truth, how about if we agree not to use advocacy articles written by proponents on either side, just published scientific research? Sound fair?

 

[Starfish]

The overall feeling I'm getting from articles and various reading, is that the research is all very new. Meaning that not many studies exist on long-term effects. Very little research seems to exist about male homosexual parenting.

Personally, I am more interested in studies on adult children of gay parents. Adults are more apt to be frank about their childhood and parents, than children who typically are fiercely loyal to their parents.

Thanks for sharing all the research. I've been reading it.

 

[Autodidact]

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
Among the findings cited by the authors:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

so what we see is that there are some minor differences, which do not in any way disfavor the same-sex families.

NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

Now NARTH would be the quintessential lying propaganda pushers that you would not want to pay any attention to, if you were interested in the truth. I believe I alerted you to them and the Family Research Council earlier. This would be the equivalent of citing a National Gay Rights Organization as an objective source.

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."

NO, it doesn't. This is a lie. It tells us that two-parent families do better than one parent, not that mother-father do better than mother-mother. Citing this irrelevant research is lying. So now we know that Mr.Nicolosi is a liar, which is not surprising if he is associated with NARTH, as their organization was founded to disseminate lies about gay people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't follow your comment. The three sentences seem disjointed. Per sentence one: increase doesn't imply something is greater (more?): increase means more by definition. Per sentence two: maintaining the existence of a thing does not indicate the absence of that maintenance is extinction. It does imply reduction however. Per three: any sanction indicates an interest (and assumed benefit) in the thing sanctioned. The reason for the sanction to increase a thing or maintain a thing is separate from the fact a sanction exists.

No, it's not. If a government action has no effect, then it has no justification.

Not according to any legislative act.

Please provide any legislative act that applies to the state of California that says that the state has a vested interest in creating as many little citizens as possible.

I couldn't follow what you wanted to say. You claimed without state sanction of marriage you'd have some population growth. This you labeled X. You then said X could be positive, negative or at zero. This contradicts the definition you gave for X (you'd have some population growth). Based on what I was getting I simply pointed out that there are many countries with negative growth.

In mathematics, a variable can be positive, negative or zero. Perhaps you encountered this concept in elementary school. I would have hoped that what I wrote immediately after I defined the variable 'X' would have refreshed your memory. I apologize for my assumption.

I've made no categorical claims on the end results of state sanctioning of marriage.

Yes, you have. You've stated repeatedly that the state has a vested interest in encournaging the creation of future citizens. You've used this as the justification for your discrimination against same-sex marriage. Now... if you've changed your mind, you're welcome to say so, though I don't know what you'd base your position on then.

I have pointed out that the state does sanction marriage. I haven't given any independent commentary on whether that is wise or not, or will accomplish a given goal. If it isn't doing what the state wants the state can repeal the sanction

And in the meantime, the purpose of marriage is at the core of the question of whether that purpose is fulfilled by same-sex marriage.

You stated India and China have run away populations. They do not. They have decreasing populations

No, they have increasing populations. According to the CIA World Factbook, China's population growth rate is 0.629% and India's is 1.578%. Both of these numbers are positive.

I don't know. I would have to put time into considering a number of things before I could answer.

So... despite not knowing what the ideal population rate is, you're certain that it's closer to the rate with state sanctioned marriage than the rate without. How is this possible?

In a free society state endorsement/sanction of a thing is the only non-coercive tool that state has. If the attempt is ineffective the state may discontinue the regimen.

You implied that state sanction of opposite-sex marriage is justified by states' desire to "secure a future citizenry". Marriage does not do this.

Same sex marriages cannot produce people, the other can. This is a base difference.

It's an over-generalization. Many opposite-sex marriages will not or cannot produce people, yet they're legal. Fertility and the desire to procreate are not tests for marriage, period.

People are important to a state. State sanction of a relation that can produce people is not same as a relation that cannot.

Right... which is why it's illegal for post-menopausal women and couples who don't intend to have kids to marry, correct?

Note: as previously explained in the thread: one doesn't typically legislate from the margins. The majority of marriages produce children. If the state wanted to exclude marriage to fertile couples they could: it would depend on the will of the people.

And the will of the people is that there be no test of fertility for marriage. Therefore, in regards to every term that the state has seen fit to impose but one, gender, same-sex marriage meets every requirement. And the determination of the State Supreme Court, based on the California Constitution, is that it is unconstitutional to make gender a requirement for marriage.

Actually "they" do. Laws and rights claims need to reflect popular will not the penchants of the few alone.

Yes, and popular will is that the state constitution should prevail over other laws of the state... and that's what happened. If the people choose to change this arrangement or change the terms of the state constitution (which may very well happen with Proposition 8), then this would change things, but in the meantime, the will of the people has been served.

 

[MoonWater]

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
Among the findings cited by the authors:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."


(Source: The Los Angeles Times, "Professors Take Issue With Gay-Parenting Research," April 27, 2001, and "Report: Kids of Gays More Empathetic," by David Crary, National Writer, Associated Press)

This article you quote seems to support our position more than it supports your star... Unless you've changed your mind. It merely mentions some differences and we never, or at least I never, said that homosexual families are exactly the same as hetero. Of course there will be differences but different does not equal worse.

 

[Storm]

Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
Among the findings cited by the authors:

NARTH? You expect us to take a NARTH study seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?

***-ever, I'll play.

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

Good! Shows that they're not bound by stupid stereotypical gender roles. Rather, they're their own people.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

1) Is anyone surprised?

2) So what? Nothing wrong with it.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

Oh, no! The women, they be getting uppity!

Good for them.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.

When even NARTH can't find a problem, you have to admit that it's because THERE ISN'T ONE!

NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

Translation: hard as we tried, we couldn't find ay negative affect, so we'll just be outraged that children of lesbian mothers don't conform to our homophobic "ideals."

"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."

Translation: The research doesn't bear out our bigotry, but we'll cling to it anyway, because that's what bigots do.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think that you have the evolution thing all mixed up, and the fact that you differ from my views is that I believe in creation, human were created to be human, endowed we intelligence, reason and free choice (a free agent) to have the capacity to fight for any, a rational agent need to have the capacity to reason, it is trough reasoning that a human decides if a thing is worth a fight or not, what is trivial to you can a vital necessity to another, eg. Territorial fight, a human will reason how important a territory is, how much power it posses, analyses the situation and predict the outcome of the fight, throwing stone involves reasoning as well, there are differences in the way humans react to external stimuli, a human receives the stimuli, propose A,B,C actions, assesses the chances of success, then acts, brutes have a direct line of action, external stimuli, eg. Territorial invasion, action regardless of consequences (eg. Defeat) brutes do not understand the signals send by other brutes=> offensive action, there is no reasoning, no plan, no analysis, no assessment, no measure of possibility of success or failure, humans act as human, as reasoning intelligent beings, brutes act as brutes.


There is a reason to why humans have been able to subdue all the other creatures even though they are not the strongest or swiftest, they realised what they had and used it even against their own kind.

I don’t know what your experiences have been, when I was a boy I use to tease a dog that I knew was in an enclosure till it was raving mad, years later I had to pass in front of the house where this dog lived and somebody left the front gate open, it was free, as soon as it sighted me, he went for me, I still have the scares on my buttock. I was a teenage by then and had lost all interest in the stupid beast and didn’t tease it for years, I was to busy chasing teenage girls. So much for dog forgiveness, love and understanding. I was also cruel to other boys, when we grew up we became friends, we reason together, admit our wrongs and forgave each other, How is that for an example?Whose the more evolved?

I've actually got a four paragraph response to this, but I saved and deleted it so as to stay on topic. Bottom line, I'm not convinced by your argument any more than you're from mine.

 

[Autodidact]

More:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

And next we'll be hearing from the National Organization Against Gay Marriage to learn the truth about gay marriage. When wanting to know about Jews, we will consult the Aryan Nation. And for information about Mormons, we will consult this group, because they're not biased at all.

So, I guess you can't find any actual scientific research to support your position, so you're resorting to anti-gay hate propaganda?

Now think, Starfish. We're comparing unmarried gay "couples" to married heterosexual couples. Do you see any problem with that methodology at all? What do you think we would find if we compared unmarried heterosexual couples to married ones--any differences at all? Would it be fair to use unmarried heterosexual couples as representative of married ones? Does it make sense to use unmarried gay couples in an argument about letting gay people marry? In fact, isn't this an argument in favor of gay marriage?

 

[Starfish]

Thought I'd highlight some other key points in the paragraph you quoted. Afraid this doesn't seem to help your position. Neither does your first link as it is an editorial about a book that claims lesbian parents are better than heterosexual parents. We are not making such claims. We are merely claiming that they do EQUALLY well. Also an episode of Oprah Isn't exactly corroborating evidence. Would you want me to draw conclusions about heterosexual families based on Jerry springer? And an article about a sperm donor being made to pay child support says nothing for the parenting skills of lesbian parents in general nor does it give adequate info(as it's ONE case) to draw the conclusion that most or even any other sperm donors will have to deal with these sorts of issues. Sorry but none of this supports your position Star.

I'm afraid you did not read all the links, and simply dismissed them on their appearance. My post was about the potential complications and risks placed into a child's life. There is evidence that adult children of sperm donations are not in favor of it. These are real people who described their experience. They weren't studied or researched, but they just shared their feelings.

The editorial about book was showing some of the weaknesses to the claims of the book.