The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course, that goes without saying.



No, I don't know you or your child. My children are also much to young too make any statements about how great we are as parents.
No doubt it will be seen over time though [joke]

Parenting is MORE than just 'you have a mam and dad, so you are automatically better rared than the kid from the lesbian woman'. Never have I argued that. All things being equal though, a mother AND a father is the optimum environment. Again, just to clarify, that does not equate to every child raised my a mom and dad is better off than any child raised in any other way.
The argument is this, that men and women bring different things to the parenting table in general. Most of which is down to intrinsic differences in how men and women think and act in general. The differences in maternal and paternal feelings about their child etc. So the argument in terms of adoption, is that if a qualifying nuclear household is available, then it should be given precedent over any other makeup.



It would be tasteless to talk about it in terms of my kids, but I'd have no problem in believing that Koth lost out on a fairly substantial part of his life. Just like my own nephew lost out on having a father, and one of my own best friends lost out on having his mother. Sure they'd tell you that themselves I'm sure. I know my nephew and my friend would have loved to have them in their lives. We will never be able to reboot their lives to compare them as people to if they had these people in their lives neither. Such is the reality of our heinous enemy death.



Again, if you belive what I've said is is arrogant, then call me arrogant:)


Again, I'm not saying differently. I'm saying children are BETTER OFF with a mother and a father, not that they'll be suicidal donkey rapists without them.



Can't disagree with that. However, in terms of adoption, you want to give a child the best chance you can. And when available, a qualifying mother and father is the only game in town. You will be giving a child both male and female role models, and all the complimentary traits that men and women bring to the parenting table.



i agree with the absolutely HUGE importance of those things, but add to that both male and female role models and thats whats best.



Again, no-ones saying 'It can't work'. I'm saying that there is a best scenario, and when it comes to adoption, this best option, for the sake of the child irrespective of the fights of a pressure group, should always be the number one priority.


I'm not denying anyone anything. I'm saying, lets give children up for adoption the best we possibly can.


I'm sorry, but whats best for the child, and not the rights that someone believes that they are entitled to is whats important in this. Again, if this is arrogance in your opinion, then call me arrogant.

Ok. You absolutely believe there is an ideal. I get that. However, no matter how firmly you believe this - does that justify equal rights not being granted to those who, for whatever reason, do not conform to your ideal?

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

So how are you excluding statistical anomalies?
How are you excluding any biases you might have?
How are you excluding the possibility that you are viewing a skewed sample?
How are you excluding the possibilities other than the hypothesis you are testing?
How are you ensuring that you are comparing a representative sample with a similar sample of gay parents?

And more importantly, how do you know that your observations and conclusions are superior to ours?

If you can't actually provide answers to any of these, then you position is nonsense and no match to actual science.

My position is not that hard to grasp. Use yer noggin, and going forward, be aware of your surroundings, and observe parents in action. If you still arrive at the same point, then hey, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. i believe you are giving social science way too much creedence, but hey, if thats what you need to be convinced, maybe someday there'll be a paper that'll do it.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ok. You absolutely believe there is an ideal. I get that. However, no matter how firmly you believe this - does that justify equal rights not being granted to those who, for whatever reason, do not conform to your ideal?

Firstly, if I just believed it to me MY ideal, then it would be inconsequential. The fact that I would be in no doubt that its THE ideal, would mean that whatever the desires or perceived rights of whatever people, the child should take precedent.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, if I just believed it to me MY ideal, then it would be inconsequential. The fact that I would be in no doubt that its THE ideal, would mean that whatever the desires or perceived rights of whatever people, the child should take precedent.

Do I take that as a yes.

You believe there is an ideal. You have no doubt of this.
Therefore it is justifiable for the State to decline to grant equal rights to those who do not conform to that ideal.

Would that be an accurate summary of your position?

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It has been pointed out that there is no single Christian position.

I call this lazy Christianity, not to be offensive. Just because there are people who profess to be Christian holding all kinds of opinions, does not mean all these opinions are equally valid. It is up to the individual Christian, to identify what the Christian position ACTUALLY is. Your argument deployed in another way, declares Fred Phelps a valid Christian. Remember the words Christ himself spoke. 'Not everyone who calls Lord, Lord, will be saved'

I'm quite awake when it comes to this issue, I assure you.

Good to hear.

Of course homosexual sex can be sinful, just as heterosexual sex can. My approach is to try to look at human relationships in the light of the love that God has shown for us through Christ - a selfless love which gives to others, as opposed to an abusive, selfish, self-gratification.

Could you back up the claim that there is a sinless context for homosexual sex?

I'll be straight up and say that I'm not a biblical literalist

I find this can be quite a worrying line. Would you mind expanding on what this actually means? does it mean you don't take eveything in the bible literally? In which case, no-one is a bible literalist (No-one believes when Jesus said he was the door to the kingdom, he was talking about actually being an accesory you'd get in B&Q). Or does it mean that you don't give everything in the bible credence? If so, what is your process for determining what is true and what is not etc?

, just someone who has come through some tough times in life and found great hope and comfort in the Christian message and the person of Jesus Christ. I accept that others feel differently to me - if they didn't, we wouldn't need this thread.

Delighted you found such hope and comfort. Found it myself, but you realise his teachings etc, also include warnings etc relating to sin and its destructive power etc?

Fair enough, if I was over the top in what I said about your remark to Sonics then I apologise. I certainly have nothing to feel righteous about either, I'm a sinner like any other. Can I put it to you this way, I've met plenty of protective (and over-protective) Dads, mainly from classic nuclear families. Surely we can only judge parents on their merits?

I'll say to you what I've said to everyone else. Start actively observing parents in action. I'll be very surprised if you don't see father/mother patterns develop. Secondly, if we take adoption, how exactly to you judge parents on merit? An adoption agency can only do its best to get what it feels is the best family for the child. It can't predict this person is going to be much better than that person, but it can start with the basic principal that men and women are different, and that children would be best with a role model of both.

If one became a good father/mother simply because of their gender, if the necessary skills for childrearing was hard-coded, that would be great, but the reality of our world seems to tell a different story.

Again, its never been about parents being great based on their gender. Rather, it being a man and woman to be a mother and a father is just the most basic fundamental starting point when considering a couple for adoption.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do I take that as a yes.

You believe there is an ideal. You have no doubt of this.
Therefore it is justifiable for the State to decline to grant equal rights to those who do not conform to that ideal.

Would that be an accurate summary of your position?

Again, i don't see this as about the rights of people wanting to adopt, but rather about the right of the child being adopted.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, i don't see this as about the rights of people wanting to adopt, but rather about the right of the child being adopted.

Who mentioned adoption?

There is a hell of a lot more to this then adoption.

Anyway, single gay people can and do adopt.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

My position is not that hard to grasp.

I know, it's close minded, irrational and unsupportable. This was what I was trying to illustrate by pointing out ways your position could go wrong and lead you to a wrong conclusion.

JimiTime wrote: »

Use yer noggin, and going forward, be aware of your surroundings, and observe parents in action. If you still arrive at the same point, then hey, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. i believe you are giving social science way too much creedence, but hey, if thats what you need to be convinced, maybe someday there'll be a paper that'll do it.

And shockingly, this is not an answer to any of those points.

How do you make sure that none of those issues aren't playing a factor and making you conclude something that is not actually true?
Are you somehow immune to those factors?

How about people who have come to a different conclusion to you?
How can they be wrong when they are relying on the same method you are?
How do you know whatever makes them wrong also does not make you wrong?

They are simple questions, but I think we both know you have no answer.
And if you can't answer them, it shows that your position is exactly what I said: closed minded, irrational and unsupported.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

I call this lazy Christianity, not to be offensive. Just because there are people who profess to be Christian holding all kinds of opinions, does not mean all these opinions are equally valid. It is up to the individual Christian, to identify what the Christian position ACTUALLY is. Your argument deployed in another way, declares Fred Phelps a valid Christian. Remember the words Christ himself spoke. 'Not everyone who calls Lord, Lord, will be saved'

I would be largely in agreement with you here about individual responsibility. People may still reach different conclusions about the moral questions of the day without putting themselves outside the bounds of Christianity. A person might be a good Christian, prayer, affirm the historic creeds,and as an aside believe that capital punishment is a good thing and deploy arguments from the Bible to support that. Now I disagree strongly with capital punishment but I wouldn't say that such a person isn't a Christian, and I'm sure that most supporters of capital punishment wouldn't claim that Helen Prejean isn't a Christian either. Essentials and non -essentials.

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you back up the claim that there is a sinless context for homosexual sex?

See below, simply put I believe that the Bible has nothing to say about committed same-sex relationships as they exist today.

JimiTime wrote: »

I find this can be quite a worrying line. Would you mind expanding on what this actually means? does it mean you don't take eveything in the bible literally? In which case, no-one is a bible literalist (No-one believes when Jesus said he was the door to the kingdom, he was talking about actually being an accesory you'd get in B&Q). Or does it mean that you don't give everything in the bible credence? If so, what is your process for determining what is true and what is not etc?

Literalist is a clumsy words in retrospect. I'm referring to the approach taken by denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention and others, as opposed to the historical-critical method. It's a challenge, sure, and I need to do a lot more study, but essentially, I believe that when Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians, a first century Corinthian would be best placed to understand what Paul was saying. So what was life like in Corinthians at the time, and what did Paul's words mean to those people? Incredible and inspiring that this is still debated today.

JimiTime wrote: »

Delighted you found such hope and comfort. Found it myself, but you realise his teachings etc, also include warnings etc relating to sin and its destructive power etc?

Indeed, I've experienced it's destructive power in my own life.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll say to you what I've said to everyone else. Start actively observing parents in action. I'll be very surprised if you don't see father/mother patterns develop. Secondly, if we take adoption, how exactly to you judge parents on merit? An adoption agency can only do its best to get what it feels is the best family for the child. It can't predict this person is going to be much better than that person, but it can start with the basic principal that men and women are different, and that children would be best with a role model of both.

Again, its never been about parents being great based on their gender. Rather, it being a man and woman to be a mother and a father is just the most basic fundamental starting point when considering a couple for adoption.

I'd think that every kid has male and female role models, I'd hope so anyway. The number of hoops that prospective parents have to jump through to adopt is huge, and I would never argue that everyone has the right to adopt, just to be considered for adoption. The rights of the child to a safe and happy home comes before everything. It's a wider issue than just adoption anyway.

28064212

By the way JimiTime, you never did answer this question:

There are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

It would be tasteless to talk about it in terms of my kids, but I'd have no problem in believing that Koth lost out on a fairly substantial part of his life. Just like my own nephew lost out on having a father, and one of my own best friends lost out on having his mother. Sure they'd tell you that themselves I'm sure. I know my nephew and my friend would have loved to have them in their lives. We will never be able to reboot their lives to compare them as people to if they had these people in their lives neither. Such is the reality of our heinous enemy death.

I would agree that I've missed out something due to my mothers death. But I would say it is not knowing her as a person, her likes/dislikes/favourite movies etc. Her personality essentially, not things because of her role as my mother.

I don't believe for a second that any of the important stuff regarding parenting wasn't possible for my father to do because he wasn't my mother. Nor do I believe if I had been raised by a same sex couple would anything have been lacking.

You're essentially ascribing a personality stereotype to mothers and fathers and stating that's why you only support the male+female couple raising kids. You haven't pointed out anything that a gay couple couldn't do that a hetero couple can with regards to raising a kid.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

You're essentially ascribing a personality stereotype to mothers and fathers and stating that's why you only support the male+female couple raising kids. You haven't pointed out anything that a gay couple couldn't do that a hetero couple can with regards to raising a kid.

I really am not Koth. If i was saying, 'But mothers cook and clean, and daddys go to work', then THAT would be stereotyping. What I am doing, is recognising that men and women are different. Think of things like the map reading study that was done that discovered that men and womens brains are different etc. THAT is type of difference I'm referring to. There are natural differences in the male and female of the species that extend past mammory glands, willys etc. Do you deny that there are common differences to be found in how men and women think about certain things etc? As far as I'm concerned, if one has failed to acknowledge that men and women exhibit different behaviour, and commonly deal with things, and think about things differently, then there is no arguing that person back.
Thats why I would say, if you are someone who requires studies to inform you, then look for the ones that aren't going to be sullied with anti or pro LGBT. There is a lot of politics in this realm. I'm assuming the study kind of folk, will be in tune with where to find studies etc, so just look for those that investigate differences in men and women, and those that investigate commonalities in fathers that are not commonly in mothers and vice versa etc. Hopefully they exist for those of you that don't know that these differences exist, and that they are not sullied by some political ends.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I really am not Koth. If i was saying, 'But mothers cook and clean, and daddys go to work', then THAT would be stereotyping. What I am doing, is recognising that men and women are different. Think of things like the map reading study that was done that discovered that men and womens brains are different etc. THAT is type of difference I'm referring to. There are natural differences in the male and female of the species that extend past mammory glands, willys etc. Do you deny that there are common differences to be found in how men and women think about certain things etc? As far as I'm concerned, if one has failed to acknowledge that men and women exhibit different behaviour, and commonly deal with things, and think about things differently, then there is no arguing that person back.
Thats why I would say, if you are someone who requires studies to inform you, then look for the ones that aren't going to be sullied with anti or pro LGBT. There is a lot of politics in this realm. I'm assuming the study kind of folk, will be in tune with where to find studies etc, so just look for those that investigate differences in men and women, and those that investigate commonalities in fathers that are not commonly in mothers and vice versa etc. Hopefully they exist for those of you that don't know that these differences exist, and that they are not sullied by some political ends.

"If a study agrees with me, that means it's not biased. If it disagrees with me, that means it's biased" :rolleyes: I'm sure even you can see the utter nonsense in that argument

As usual you fail to acknowledge that no-one has said men and women are exactly the same. What you either fail to understand (or dismiss because it doesn't fit in your world view) is that these differences do not make one or the other a better parent. The differences are not ones which affect a child's development. You've been told this over and over again, but of course, you continually try to make the argument out to be something else, something you're right about, but that no-one has disagreed with you about.

By the way, any chance of an answer to this question:

There are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

I really am not Koth. If i was saying, 'But mothers cook and clean, and daddys go to work', then THAT would be stereotyping. What I am doing, is recognising that men and women are different. Think of things like the map reading study that was done that discovered that men and womens brains are different etc. THAT is type of difference I'm referring to. There are natural differences in the male and female of the species that extend past mammory glands, willys etc. Do you deny that there are common differences to be found in how men and women think about certain things etc? As far as I'm concerned, if one has failed to acknowledge that men and women exhibit different behaviour, and commonly deal with things, and think about things differently, then there is no arguing that person back.

But just because there are differences, does not mean that being exposed to those differences is in any way vital to the upbringing of a child. You still have not been able to point out any actual difference which is required for raising a child.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

But just because there are differences, does not mean that being exposed to those differences is in any way vital to the upbringing of a child. You still have not been able to point out any actual difference which is required for raising a child.

So , have you recognised that the differences are there then?

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

But just because there are differences, does not mean that being exposed to those differences is in any way vital to the upbringing of a child. You still have not been able to point out any actual difference which is required for raising a child.

So , have you recognised that the differences are there then?

As I've said numerous times, I haven't recognised, nor have you provided, any differences which would have any measurable negative effect on raising a child.

marienbad

Jimitime are you saying that a straight couple that meets the minimum standards for adoption should always be favoured over a more qualified homosexual couple ?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

I really am not Koth. If i was saying, 'But mothers cook and clean, and daddys go to work', then THAT would be stereotyping. What I am doing, is recognising that men and women are different. Think of things like the map reading study that was done that discovered that men and womens brains are different etc. THAT is type of difference I'm referring to. There are natural differences in the male and female of the species that extend past mammory glands, willys etc. Do you deny that there are common differences to be found in how men and women think about certain things etc? As far as I'm concerned, if one has failed to acknowledge that men and women exhibit different behaviour, and commonly deal with things, and think about things differently, then there is no arguing that person back.
Thats why I would say, if you are someone who requires studies to inform you, then look for the ones that aren't going to be sullied with anti or pro LGBT. There is a lot of politics in this realm. I'm assuming the study kind of folk, will be in tune with where to find studies etc, so just look for those that investigate differences in men and women, and those that investigate commonalities in fathers that are not commonly in mothers and vice versa etc. Hopefully they exist for those of you that don't know that these differences exist, and that they are not sullied by some political ends.

Yes, you have been stereotyping. See the example bolded below from a previous post of yours.

JimiTime wrote: »

the thing is, no matter how many exceptions you can cite, we know that in general, women and men differ. When you observe mothers playing with their kids in general, its a lot different to when you see men do it. When you see in general, a childs reaction to the tone of his fathers voice compared to the tone their mothers voice.

I would suggest, if people really want to study at the differences, and can't see them for themselves, that they look to studies not sullied by pro or anti LGBT. Look to reasearch into the the role offered by fathers etc.

That may be true of the kind of things you referred to earlier in terms of daddy the breadwinner and disciplinarian, and mammy the cook and soft touch etc. These are more societal gender roles, the evolution of which was probably based on both patriarchy and also on playing to the strengths of the genders (And no, I'm not saying women should do the cooking ). However, I'll give you a simple example in terms of how mothers and fathers in general naturally play with their kids. I brought this question up with my wife last night, telling her that there is a rather large contingent of the boards faithful consider us to be inconsequential in terms of me being a man and her being a woman. After laughing a bit, she just said,
'Even how you and *named a few of our friends with kids* play with the kids is completely different. The way you all rough-house, and throw the kids about and compete with them. Are these people blind to playground antics? Watching as dads are getting their children to be more daring, while mothers are wincing onlookers. They don't see that as valuable? They don't see that common contrast? Or is it that they don't see its value?'
I replied, that the answers given would likely be, 'but sure a man can be a wincing onlooker, and a woman encouraging the more daring'.
She replied, 'Then why is it that you don't see it then?'
'its the exception?' I replied.
'An exception I've never seen, and certainly no argument to say that women and men are interchangeable!'
'Men have willies, but look, we found some men with no willy, so now we must question if men have willy's? I think not! Exceptions don't make the rule. People will obviously see what they want to see. Its obvious for years, but someone now wants to show how little value fathers and mothers have in contrast to each other, and those wanting to believe it to be the case shut off their brains and pretend theres no real difference. Why the hell are you wasting your time with this type of nonsense? Come watch the Bourne Supremacy'.

I 100% agree with her of course. On just that topic, if you go to a playground and listen to the parents. Fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone more. Climb a little higher, Throw them where angels only thread, ride their bike a bit faster etc. Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits where mothers protect and are more cautious. And while at times this difference can cause disagreement between father and mother on what is best for the child, the contrast is great for the children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves are not giving the child the best balance.

These are as I said before, personality traits. Now unless you're saying that it is biologically/neurologically impossible for those traits to appear in both genders, and that only "fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone", you don't really have much to support your male+female only stance.

Btw, not a month ago I watched a friend encourage her young daughter to go beyond her comfort zone. And that would be the norm for most mothers that I know. Looks like those traits you are fond of aren't bound by gender like you presume they are.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

So , have you recognised that the differences are there then?

Jimi, no one is going to list them as no one but you believes that there are exclusive differences between genders that are essential for child rearing.

Please actually point out which differences you are referring to and show and support how 1) they cannot be present in the other gender and 2) show how they are essential or more beneficial to child rearing.

If you can't do this, then do the honest thing and admit it.

qrrgprgua

marienbad wrote: »

Jimitime are you saying that a straight couple that meets the minimum standards for adoption should always be favoured over a more qualified homosexual couple ?

The best environment for a Child is in a Family with a Father and a Mother.

Why we are looking to deny this basic fundamental natural reality is crazy.

We have a society that tells us natural is best, breast feed you baby.., Feed them a balance diet. Importance of mother child bonding. etc..

Yet we disregard the natural family in favour of same sex couples.? I am sure children have grown up ok. But the basic point of what is the Ideal best environment for a Child is to have their own Father/Mother, if that is not possible then the best is to have a substitute father and Mother.

To deny the Child a possibility of having a Father and a Mother in favour of giving them to a homosexual couples is crazy.

Natures way is best. Both sexes have roles to play in a Child's development.

qrrgprgua

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The best environment for a Child is in a Family with a Father and a Mother.

Why we are looking to deny this basic fundamental natural reality is crazy.

We have a society that tells us natural is best, breast feed you baby.., Feed them a balance diet. Importance of mother child bonding. etc..

Yet we disregard the natural family in favour of same sex couples.? I am sure children have grown up ok. But the basic point of what is the Ideal best environment for a Child is to have their own Father/Mother, if that is not possible then the best is to have a substitute father and Mother.

To deny the Child a possibility of having a Father and a Mother in favour of giving them to a homosexual couples is crazy.

Natures way is best. Both sexes have roles to play in a Child's development.

This is the natural fallacy.
"Natural" is not always best. Treating most diseases and aliments the "natural" way ends with you being dead sooner.
"Natural" child birth (as in doing in a forest without a doctor, medical equipment or modern knowledge etc, as opposed to say drug free or home birth) is far from the ideal.

It's not "natural" for you to be posting your frankly silly and uninformed position on a computer and sending it out on a network of information.

And of course there's the tiny little problem that the statement: "The best environment for a Child is in a Family with a Father and a Mother" Is not supported by any actual evidence.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The best environment for a Child is in a Family with a Father and a Mother.

Why we are looking to deny this basic fundamental natural reality is crazy.

We have a society that tells us natural is best, breast feed you baby.., Feed them a balance diet. Importance of mother child bonding. etc..

Yet we disregard the natural family in favour of same sex couples.? I am sure children have grown up ok. But the basic point of what is the Ideal best environment for a Child is to have their own Father/Mother, if that is not possible then the best is to have a substitute father and Mother.

To deny the Child a possibility of having a Father and a Mother in favour of giving them to a homosexual couples is crazy.

Natures way is best. Both sexes have roles to play in a Child's development.

"Natures way is best" - what a crazy, irrelevant statement in a discussion on adoption.

Perhaps you can answer this question:

There are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Yes, you have been stereotyping. See the example bolded below from a previous post of yours.



These are as I said before, personality traits. Now unless you're saying that it is biologically/neurologically impossible for those traits to appear in both genders, and that only "fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone", you don't really have much to support your male+female only stance.

Just like the map reading scenario, they are not just personality traits common in both sexes, but rather common manifestations of the deeper differences between the sexes. You are arguing with the manifestation rather than what makes it more common in one sex than the other. Also, what you are ignoring, is that I've told you to keep observing going forward. See if YOU can see any commonalities occurring. You don't need to argue with my observations at all. You'll either personally affirm your stand about the unimportance of mothers or fathers, or realise that there is a complimentary difference at work. As I said, once you are unaware or in denial about the difference, I certainly can't argue you back. Just keep an eye out for the differences yourself, and if you are a study kind of guy, look for any studies into male/female differences, and how fathers parent compared to mothers.

Btw, not a month ago I watched a friend encourage her young daughter to go beyond her comfort zone. And that would be the norm for most mothers that I know. Looks like those traits you are fond of aren't bound by gender like you presume they are.

Good for her, now just keep observing men and women with their kids, and see if you see commonalities arise.

yawha

By "deeper differences" do you mean socially constructed gender roles?

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Just keep an eye out for the differences yourself, and if you are a study kind of guy, look for any studies into male/female differences, and how fathers parent compared to mothers.

And these studies, if they existed and were accurate could not allow you to conclude what you are concluding. The only way for a study to do so is to compare gay and straight parents.
And again, they've done this.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

"Natures way is best" - what a crazy, irrelevant statement in a discussion on adoption.

Perhaps you can answer this question:

There are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

You keep raising this moronic scenario as if its relevant. The fact is, an adoption agency likely wont be accepting a couple who are hardly home and can't afford a child, so the question is completely irrelevant. I remember you asked in another thread, 'If one couple were alco, abusive druggies or some such, and the other were clean living gays etc; who gets the kids? Your question is too stupid to answer. Here is the more real and reasonable version of your question:

2 couples have passed the financial and relevant care giving process to be considered good canditates for adoption. One is a couple of men, and the other a man and woman.

So on this more real scenario, the nuclear home is best choice for the child. Giving them both male and female role models, and all the complimentary behaviour traits that go with men and women and in turn mothers and fathers.

Robert ninja

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The best environment for a Child is in a Family with a Father and a Mother.

Why we are looking to deny this basic fundamental natural reality is crazy.

We have a society that tells us natural is best, breast feed you baby.., Feed them a balance diet. Importance of mother child bonding. etc..

Yet we disregard the natural family in favour of same sex couples.? I am sure children have grown up ok. But the basic point of what is the Ideal best environment for a Child is to have their own Father/Mother, if that is not possible then the best is to have a substitute father and Mother.

To deny the Child a possibility of having a Father and a Mother in favour of giving them to a homosexual couples is crazy.

Natures way is best. Both sexes have roles to play in a Child's development.

There is no evidence to suggest that children benifit from having a male and female guardian. There IS evidence however that suggests children benifit from growing up with other children. But that doesn't make it crazy to have a single kid (only child) and it's certainly not unnatural. You seriously have some god-complex where you think you can say what's natural and what's not natural. In fact, in nature, the fathers typically don't hang around to raise the children at all and usually start multiple families - or die hunting for food or some such but I highly doubt you'd think an all-natural approach is the best way to go then if you actually follow through with such the logic of it.

And as mentioned earlier, all-natural birth is also not the best way to go and it's always safer to to have a team of trained professionals around with advanced tech, surgery and meds.

JimiTime

yawha wrote: »

By "deeper differences" do you mean socially constructed gender roles?

no. As I said, look a the map reading situation in terms of men and women, and that should give you an idea that there are intrinsic differences in the workings of men and women.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

You keep raising this moronic scenario as if its relevant. The fact is, an adoption agency likely wont be accepting a couple who are hardly home and can't afford a child, so the question is completely irrelevant. I remember you asked in another thread, 'If one couple were alco, abusive druggies or some such, and the other were clean living gays etc; who gets the kids? Your question is too stupid to answer. Here is the more real and reasonable version of your question:

2 couples have passed the financial and relevant care giving process to be considered good canditates for adoption. One is a couple of men, and the other a man and woman.

So on this more real scenario, the nuclear home is best choice for the child. Giving them both male and female role models, and all the complimentary behaviour traits that go with men and women and in turn mothers and fathers.

Oh FFS. Do you really think adoption agencies have a binary selection process? Couple applies, then they're either qualifed or not qualified? There's no such thing as a better couple? Don't be so obtuse. How do you think they decide if the choice is between 2 heterosexual couples? Flip a coin?

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

And these studies, if they existed and were accurate could not allow you to conclude what you are concluding. The only way for a study to do so is to compare gay and straight parents.
And again, they've done this.

And if thats good enough for you, then fine. A study wont change what I witness on a daily basis though, so it can't convince me.