The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Me Myself]

Is this how you typically judge someone's character? By taking their own testimony of their character at face value? When was the last time you heard someone say, "you know, I'm a piece of garbage, a filthy, hateful human being, and I wouldn't want to know me if I was someone else. I'm a worthless degenerate in my personal life though I know how to clean up well and put on a good face."? My guess is probably never. If your method of judging character is as thorough as it is this case then there's not much left to say.

You didn´t read almost anything I wrote u_u

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, the article used the studies to try and back up a point. Either a view held before or after doing thorough study. Still, why trust him when you know less about him than the 3 minute video posted?

Neither Dailey nor Wohls invented the argument they were making. They were attempting to support old arguments about the merits of gay adoptions. Dailey had over 60 medical/secular studies to support different main points of his argument. The support that Wohls' provided to his argument was one "study" in the form of his own assessment of his personhood. Not exactly compelling.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

most of those studies are irrelevant today, and if the article backs up those studies, at least one of them says:

children raised by gay parents are at least as well cared as those raised by straigth parents.

You keep repeating that over but you've failed to demonstrate it. You made note of some of the outliers, studies that were over 20-30 years old. We appreciate that and take note of it. FWIW, it still doesn't mean that the findings of those studies were wrong. You've effectively noted that the few studies you checked failed to prove that gay adoptions are a bad idea, which basically was his thesis. You might notice is that in addition to a thesis, Dailey's argument employed main points supporting his thesis. What you failed to realize is that the studies you took more than a two second glance at were used to support a paticular main point, not the whole thesis.

 

[9Westy9]

Neither Dailey nor Wohls invented the argument they were making. They were attempting to support old arguments about the merits of gay adoptions. Dailey had over 60 medical/secular studies to support different main points of his argument. The support that Wohls' provided to his argument was one "study" in the form of his own assessment of his personhood. Not exactly compelling.

Dailey? Wohls? Which study are we referring to here? Also I still haven't had a reply to how you can trust someone you don't know.

 

[Me Myself]

Jungle, this is for your information:


LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You check out 2010 studies on the subject so you get a CONTEMPORARY view on the field, and not an outdated one.

 

[Me Myself]

In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful."

In other words, unless it has been effectively proven differently, it is plain unfounded sexual discrimination, be it supported by religious views or not.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Dailey? Wohls? Which study are we referring to here? Also I still haven't had a reply to how you can trust someone you don't know.

You can't. That's the point.

 

[9Westy9]

You can't. That's the point.

So then we should all be sceptics? Suits me fine.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children’s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful."

In other words, unless it has been effectively proven differently, it is plain unfounded sexual discrimination, be it supported by religious views or not.

I respect this argument. You got a quote from some highly regarded sources and posted it. The reality is that it's foolish to portray even science as some all-knowing authority. Even science has shown a propensity to bow to political pressure as evidenced by the era of scientific racism which was common even through the first half of the 20th century. All i'm saying is that we must remain discerning even with sources that come highly regarded

 

[Me Myself]

I respect this argument. You got a quote from some highly regarded sources and posted it. The reality is that it's foolish to portray even science as some all-knowing authority. Even science has shown a propensity to bow to political pressure as evidenced by the era of scientific racism which was common even through the first half of the 20th century. All i'm saying is that we must remain discerning even with sources that come highly regarded

It´s still far better than a theologian.

In any case, to the least the burden of proof is on your side.

Without it, it is not immoral to accept and preach homosexuals have the right to adopt, and as long as it´s not your baby, not allowing them to adopt is practicaly discrimination, unless you have a higher authority to say otherwise.

We are still waiting.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It´s still far better than a theologian.

In any case, to the least the burden of proof is on your side.

Without it, it is not immoral to accept and preach homosexuals have the right to adopt, and as long as it´s not your baby, not allowing them to adopt is practicaly discrimination, unless you have a higher authority to say otherwise.

We are still waiting.

Kids have been raised in traditional homes for millenia. I'd argue that the burden of proof is most definately on the "news guys on the block"

 

[Madhuri]

I know a lesbian couple that have twins- a girl and boy. One of the ladies is the biological mother.
They are the sweetest kids, very well behaved, and such a loving and committed family.

I have nothing against this sort of family, and I have nothing against changing society. Pushing against the boundaries of the norm is natural and inevitable. It has always been and always will be.

The main oppositions to this particular variety of change is based in long standing tradition. People are so scared of changing what they know and always fear the worse. Often, these fears are unfounded. Or they are based almost entirely on religion.

Since this is a topic almost always opposed from a religious standpoint, I think on this forum it may be prudent to agree to disagree since. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Kids have been raised in traditional homes for millenia. I'd argue that the burden of proof is most definately on the "news guys on the block"

Actually the nuclear family is more recent, and far from common. Most societies have practiced some form of polygamy, some have very loose definitions of marriage, and even a number of them either allowed for homosexual marriage or didn't discern between homosexual and heterosexual.

 

[Me Myself]

Kids have been raised in traditional homes for millenia. I'd argue that the burden of proof is most definately on the "news guys on the block"

Well, the way they prove right through millenia has been that they just do what they intend and people find out on their own that there was nothign wrong with it.

"traditional" changes from person to person. Nontraditional has always existed and many famously reknowned people had untraditional upbringing and became heros.

This is just the new untraditional.

And this untraditional is INOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

So the burden of proof is still on those trying to ban it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Kids have been raised in traditional homes for millenia. I'd argue that the burden of proof is most definately on the "news guys on the block"

The burden of proof is on those making the claim that homosexual couples can't adequately raise children. The homosexual couples initially made no claims other than that they wanted to raise children. Now they have to defend themselves in a guilty-until-proven-innocent kangaroo court of Christian opinion and they've had to do so from the very beginning even before there were any statistics one way or the other.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Well, the way they prove right through millenia has been that they just do what they intend and people find out on their own that there was nothign wrong with it.

"traditional" changes from person to person. Nontraditional has always existed and many famously reknowned people had untraditional upbringing and became heros.

This is just the new untraditional.

And this untraditional is INOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

So the burden of proof is still on those trying to ban it.

This is quite possibly the most convoluted argument I've ever witnessed. I don't know if it's because English isn't your first language and you had trouble putting it into words. If this was actually the thought in your brain then this is the type of thought that only makes sense in MeMyself land

 

[Me Myself]

This is quite possibly the most convoluted argument I've ever witnessed. I don't know if it's because English isn't your first language and you had trouble putting it into words. If this was actually the thought in your brain then this is the type of thought that only makes sense in MeMyself land

Your perception seem to be at fault.

Inocent until proven guilty is easy enough for most people.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The burden of proof is on those making the claim that homosexual couples can't adequately raise children. The homosexual couples initially made no claims other than that they wanted to raise children. Now they have to defend themselves in a guilty-until-proven-innocent kangaroo court of Christian opinion and they've had to do so from the very beginning even before there were any statistics one way or the other.

We're talking about children, not guinea pigs. You're damn right it should be guilty until proven innocent when we're talking about children

 

[Me Myself]

We're talking about children, not guinea pigs. You're damn right it should be guilty until proven innocent when we're talking about children

How will they be proven inocent if they cant take care of kids?

Are you familiar with catch 22?

 

[Quagmire]

Kids have been raised in traditional homes for millenia. "

If you're talking about the one-of-each parent family, uh uh, that's actually a pretty recent cultural development.

For most of our existence, dating back well into pre-history, children were raised by entire, multi-generational, clans and tribes. Since homosexuality has been with us for as long as we've been us, having a few homosexual clan/tribe members take a hand in the raising of any given child was probably the norm.