Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, but if I brought up psychological research which says that children are better raised in a family with a mother and a father (i.e this is the optimal family unit for a child's development), you would attempt to refute that also surely?

Do you actually have research that shows this or are you just trying to imply that I'll ignore it to serve my bias?

If the research is refutable, I will refute it. If not, I will have to accept it. The questions that will be relevant are what the nature of the harm done would be and how that compares to the harm (of the same nature and of differing natures) done by fostering in general. This would all need to be examined in the context of the harm done to children through inadvertent bad parenting, deliberate neglect and all weighed up against the potential benefits to child and prospective parents. Then of course it must be examined in terms of rights. Is the harm significant enough and (most importantly) predictable enough for us to justify rejecting prospective parents on the basis of this putative "risk factor", if it constitutes such. We must be consistent of course. If we can make similarly accurate and significant predictions regarding giving children to people of certain cultures or ethnicities, then we are compelled to treat the situation the same.

So, where's the evidence?

Wicknight wrote: »

I have to disagree with the assertion that Christianity causes homophobia, children bullying a "gay" child in a play ground are not doing it due to some deep seated theological position.

The Christian position can, and has, be used though as a justification for these feelings. "Even God thinks it is an abomination", that sort of thing.

I don't think they are doing it out of theological position, I think they have been born into a society where homosexuality has long been held to be an aberrant deviation from the norm which is morally wrong. This means that although they don't have any particularly vehement christian beliefs, the world they are being brought up in is homophobic because of the influence of christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Both. Many psychological studies have indicated that both parents serve a role in language development, and fathers and mothers both play a crucial role in discipline, and many social problems have been attributed to the lack of a father or a mother:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W52-4KWTCH6-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b9e86b9489580c97537f2e8cb8c35ac4

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2000/August/parents.aspx

Thank you, I will read these. I should say though that the loss of a father or mother is not at all the same as the complete lack of a person fulfilling that role. Similarly the complete lack of a parent of one or other gender is not the same as the lack of a person fulfilling the traditionally associated parental role.

Jakkass wrote: »

Both a mother and a father deal with children differently, encouraging different attributes. One cannot replace a father, with a mother, and a mother with a father, both are truly unique in the childhood development process.

That may well be true, but assumes that gender is essential to the perceived mother or father role from the child's perspective. Or is relevant in modern society anyway. Perhaps this is addressed in the literature you've provided. I'm sure there are heterosexual couples in which the classic gender roles are ambiguous or reversed, where female is provider and male is nurturer and so on. If the research shows gender to be essential for some specified beneficial outcome, should we consider the reversed roles to be immoral?

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you not understand your statement also can be considered in homosexuality being natural. It is hugely contested in science, and there has been nothing (that I know of, I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary) that is conclusive on this.

It's really not a contested issue in science. Homosexuality is observed in nature. Thus is natural. Murder is also natural. And art is unnatural in as much as it is created by man. So the nature element cannot be said to have any real meaning to morality and we can discard it as a defence of homosexuality or an attack on it.

The parenting thing is also something of a side issue. I don't know what the prevalence of would-be homosexual parents is, but it doesn't directly relate to the morality of homosexual acts.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are saying what I think you are saying, which in my interpretation seems to be:

A man can fulfil the role of a mother, and a woman can fulfil the role of a father.

Yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is absurd, considering that it is their gender that allows them to act as fathers, and as mothers.

Really? We're talking about roles here now, not giving birth or breast feeding. What elements of gender allow role assignment such as nurturing versus providing? Is it genetics? Genitals? Hormones? Brain structure? Personality? As we move up that list gender becomes harder to define. Also as we move up that list, the relevance to motherhood or fatherhood becomes more defined. Personality dominates all. There are men, fully and entirely masculine in every way upon that list but for one key element: they are genetically female. Can they be only mothers? There are men who are fully male but for their brain structure and personality. Homosexuals. Apparently they may only fulfil the father role. Some behave so effeminately as to offend certain people but I guess they'll have to slug it out as classical fathers anyway. Some women behave in a fully masculine fashion.

And then there are fully heterosexual men and women who, in various ways display personalities and behaviours entirely consistent with the opposite gender, or varying mixtures of both genders. Working career mothers and house proud husbands. Inevitably in a parenting partnership, various roles are adopted by the parents and in my experience they very rarely fall into the classic mother and father roles you are suggesting should be uniform.

Jakkass wrote: »

Men respond differently in certain ways to women, and this is the reason why children develop the way they do, having a male and a female rolemodel. Suggesting that two of the same gender can serve as a male and female role model is illogical considering that they are both of one gender.

Both of the same physical gender yes. But what about genetically? Or mentally? If I can grow up to understand that gender is not at all as simple as it appears, and that gender roles are merely a function of a society which never ceases to change, why can the children of two men not also grasp this? Are you suggesting they're doomed to be gender confused? Is there evidence of this?

Jakkass wrote: »

Gender is essential in a father and a mother role (see above). It is relevant in modern society because fathers and mothers both have very different things to offer their children based on how they operate due to being a man and a woman.

But life is not as simple as that and traditional gender roles are gradually vanishing because there is no often necessity for them in modern western society.

Jakkass wrote: »

Each gender offers something positive to the development of a child.

I'm sure they do, but it's not as if the child is going to be deprived of contact with one or other gender.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the gender roles being reversed, hypothetical situations are irrelevant unless you can find some resource to support what you say.

What? Working mothers, house husbands? Are these hypothetical now?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing to say that the roles are reversed at all in childhood development even if either parent acts slightly differently to any other mother or father.

Not sure what you're getting at there. I suspect you've misunderstood me.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are an array of different hypotheses concerning homosexuality. If you are to make a claim like this it would be necessary for you to show that there aren't conflicting theories on homosexuality in science and how it has emerged. Just because you say it isn't a contested issue in science doesn't mean it isn't.

What has the emergence or cause of homosexuality got to do with its status as natural or unnatural? We observe it in nature, so it is natural. The theories regarding the nature of homosexuality and its persistence are another matter entirely.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for it being observed in animal life, are you suggesting that our morals should be comparable to that of animals?

You've completely misunderstood me. I'm saying that nature is irrelevant to morality.

Jakkass wrote: »

You also say that murder is natural, does that mean that we should allow murder without punishment?

No, that was a statement in support of my assertion that nature does not enter into our considerations of morality. I also stated that art is unnatural and yet not immoral on that basis. You see my point now? I am attempting to move on from the nature argument because it is irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree the nature alone doesn't have anything to do with morality, however it doesn't make homosexuality any more moral amongst human beings.

It doesn't enter into morality at all. The arguments on nature are a defence against the oft-cited homophobic claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and that it is immoral partly on that basis.

Jakkass wrote: »

(Parenting) is an issue that is worth discussing if we are to discuss the legalisation of gay marriage and the change of the traditional family unit, which I consider worthy to be valued and protected.

I think that is rather off-topic though. It does not relate to homosexuality as a sin or as immoral. Maybe there should be a thread on gay marriage.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's just an issue of disagreement, I think that life would be better for all if there was an effort to adopt children to loving married heterosexual couples,

Better for people who think that homosexual couples can damage child development, perhaps. There's no evidence that this is the case. And certainly not better for homosexuals who would like to raise a family. Nor for children who grow up seeing that discrimination perpetuated.

Jakkass wrote: »

...as this would be better for their continued development in the long run.

If we were living in the stone age and traditional gender roles had an impact on survival, maybe there would be relevant long-term implications. Morals and social roles change as society changes. And I think we can safely say that society here in the west has changed since the Bible was last edited.

Ok, those sources from the last page. Mixed bag. One good, two no good.

Jakkass wrote: »

Many psychological studies have indicated that both parents serve a role in language development, and fathers and mothers both play a crucial role in discipline, and many social problems have been attributed to the lack of a father or a mother:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W52-4KWTCH6-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b9e86b9489580c97537f2e8cb8c35ac4

A very good article. Study is of a reasonable size (n=120) and the retention rate wasn't bad (about 75% to the 24 month mark). Looks like their stats are decent. The conclusions aren't exactly dramatic, but they are solid. The study supports your contention regarding the role of father and mother figures in language development. I would be very interested in seeing whether a sufficiently masculine woman might adequately substitute for the father role that is highlighted here. This study does not address this, nor does it examine whether homosexual couples differ from mixed gender couples. Do you have a primary study which examines either question?

The data here does not support the notion that homosexual couples negatively impact on child development, as it doesn't address the question at all. The study does not at all address your assertions about discipline and social issues.

Jakkass wrote: »

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf

Not a great article. The author consistently fails to differentiate between gender and gender roles. He welds the two together and makes generalisations about them:

Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot.

He assumes that all men act like men and all women act like women. That they all react to infants in a uniform fashion according to their gender. That Manfathers encourage the child to physical risk while womenmothers balance this with caution. That men always play rough with their kids whilst women always play gently.

Nowhere in any of this does the author give us evidence that these assertions hold true. And nowhere does he actually ask the question "can a man fulfil some of the roles I am ascribing to women and vice versa?" He just doesn't try to challenge his viewpoint even slightly.

To top it all off, he gives us this doozie:

A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category.

I believe that, but the author has decided that this correlation is equal to causation. Get married, he seems to suggest, and you won't do these things, and will thus be a better father by teaching your kids to respect women. Except of course that logically the sort of jerk who abuses his kids and beats his partner is also unlikely to get married. If we can convince him to get married, he's still going to be a jerk who abuses his kids and beats his partner.

The statistic is telling us something, but it is devoid of context here and the author has simply assumed it means something else- the less likely of the two explanations.

Weak and biased rubbish.

Jakkass wrote: »

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2000/August/parents.aspx

The quality of the research within is this article is rather poor and the agenda is painfully obvious. Take this statement, intended to support the position that two married parents provide better protection from poverty and thus from knock-on effects such as academic failure etc.

For example, U.S. data gathered in 1995 indicate that only 10 percent of children under age 18 in families with two married parents lived in poverty. Contrast this with 50 percent who lived with an unmarried mother.

Of course, many single parent families are just poor to start with, as unmarried pregnancy rates are higher in the poor. Some single parent families exist because poverty drove one parent to leave. The author has made the same statistical faux pas of mistaking correlation for causation. He could clear up the ambiguity by looking more closely at the statistics, but he does not.

Notice also the comparison between a married couples and single, unmarried mothers. The comparison changes two variables at once, parent count and marital status. So how can we account for the role of each component in the output, the poverty stat? The comparison is not comprehensive and it attempts to put the focus on marital status rather than parent number or gender. Where is the poverty statistic for unmarried couples? For homosexual couples? Perhaps the data exists, but if it does, the author has omitted it.

The article is not rigorous or systematic. The stats have been interpreted in a simplistic fashion. Are two parents better than one? Of course. Are two married parents better than two unmarried parents? There's no answer here, though there is implication. Ditto with regard to homosexual parents. The questions are not really looked at. The conclusion was arrived at a priori and the data cherry merely picked to support it. The author was not interested in falsifying his position, just in reinforcing his assumption. Textbook confirmation bias, as with the previous article.

Jakkass wrote: »

AtomicHorror: see the problem now is that you have replaced the emphasis on psychology which you began with on sociology,

Well they are connected, aren't they? Society is a product of psychology and psychology is modulated by society. My point is that both are dynamic and neither is what they were when your morality was laid down.

Jakkass wrote: »

or that Western society won't need gender roles, thus already disputing that men have a different method of raising children, than women do because of their biological makeup, their brain functioning differently to that of a woman.

But many homosexual men have brains which function like those of women. And behaviour that resembles that of women. If that's all there is to the biology or psychology of a parental role, then your argument is dead in the water.

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't something that can be just thrown out and replaced by a cultural norm. Cultural norms aren't involved in how Christianity views things, I don't follow Christianity to be popular, I follow it because I believe that the Son of God came to redeem my sins, and to teach me a moral path, as did God and His holy prophets.

Jakkass wrote: »

Arguing that men can replace women at being mothers, and that women can replace men at being fathers is quite frankly ridiculous given that it is the way that men act naturally as opposed to the way women do that make for a well balanced childhood in the vast majority of cases.

But we're not talking about the majority of cases here. We're talking about the uncommon. And you've yet to provide any evidence at all that the non-standard family unit is harmful. Show me the evidence if you have it please.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course that isn't taking other marital issues into account, but I honestly believe that the State should be encouraging the nuclear family unit to continue to exist.

The state should be looking at consequence and not dogma. I'm sure they'll give your well considered view a hearing for the sake of your vote though.

Jakkass wrote: »

The family is more important than to be put through a lab-rat situation to see if the "Western society won't need traditional gender roles".

How would you propose we actually determine the truth of the matter then? I suspect you'd rather assume the worst and do nothing than cautiously explore what may be a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Jakkass wrote: »

Mind you my view is naturally one of a conservative, who is quite happy with the way families are perceived right now, and one that wants to defend this given the views concerning childhood development in psychology.

Which are what? All you've given us is a paper on language development which made no comparisons at all to homosexual parents. And as for the perception of family- wake up! It's already changed, and is continuing to change. Whether either of us likes it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I honestly want to find what is best for people, rather than to accept a sub-optimal alternative.

You're assuming a sub optimal alternative, you have no evidence that it is such.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the comparison between married couples and a single mother, I think it is fair that a family with two parents in most cases will be more capable to care for the welfare of a child than not.

Read my post again. I'm not disputing this blindly obvious point. I'm disputing the comparing of two statistics which are not comparable. They change two variables simultaneously without controls- rendering the statistic meaningless.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for disputing statistics, that's irrelevant if they are indeed true, statistics are statistics.

And these stats firstly do not compare like with like and secondly do not contain the controls required to make them mean anything at all, let alone what the author implies. I don't know how to explain that better to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

AtomicHorror: The references I linked to, and the citations underneath that work also demonstrate how a family with a mother and a father is best for a child (optimum). There is no need to run around in circles.

Forgive me if I'm missing them, but the articles themselves seem to show no statistics for homosexual families. Without that comparison, you have no evidence that your assertion is true. Now, perhaps the citations attached to those articles do address that question, but the few I attempted to access were not available to my university as they were books rather than peer reviewed papers.

Is there a specific reference which addresses the married couple vs. non-married couple question, the married single versus non-married single and the homosexual versus heterosexual comparisons? I'll gladly look at them, but I really don't have the time to check all of the references within those three articles, especially when it would involve looking for hard copies. 2-3 would be ok.