a bit rich?

glaston wrote: »

Stating that the ideal environment to raise a child is between a man and a woman has the implicit suggestion that a man and a woman will provide a better environment than a same sex couple can, thats my reading anyway.

Well it's a logical leap. He only said what he said. The "implicit suggestion" is your own prejudice.

Either way, all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not acknowledge that?

I used to think like that too until I got to know a same sex couple with kids, now I consider myself to have been ignorant. They are comitted and act as balanced role models.

I'm sure they are, and I'm sure they are making a great success of it, and I'm sure the child will be raised as good if not better than his/her peers. However, this one instance doesn't prove anything really, and in the instance of same sex parents you do not have a male father/female mother, therefore you do not have the same intimate relationship with both sexes from birth and throughout life. You also (unless the child happens to be gay) lose out on knowledge of heterosexual relationships. You simply do not have the exposure.

I want to repose the question, because I want you to answer it: all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not agree with that?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Coupled with this is that there is a hell of a lot of his „ideal“ couples who are anything but.

...as there are same sex couple who are anything but, this proves nothing - unless you are suggesting that same sex couples are in fact better parents?

What organs are contained in your pants seems to have no bearing on how ideal you are as a parent.

No, but having a vagina in your pants kinda excludes you from being a male role model, and having a penis doesn't make you a suitable female role model.

In fact, unlike some members of his church, there are a lot of us who feel that what is in your pants should be kept well out of any child's development.

Cheap shot. Fairly pointless. Does nothing for your argument.
1/10: More effort required.

What we notice however is people who trot out the claim the cardinal just spewed, never back it up.

I just did. Refute my points. I notice, however, other than your cheap shot, there isn't a whole lot of substance to your claim. Care to provide something substantial to back up your points?

They declare by fiat that it is so.

You mean like you've just done?

Sorry, I No explanation why it should be so.

I just gave an explanation. I await yours.

Again it is merely his de facto assumption that “change” is bad that leads him to this false conclusion.

Nope, nothing at all what so ever to do with that assumption. Nice try.

And even if we were to take his comment as true, in the absence of any reason to do so, what has “ideal” got to do with it?

Ideal is the situation I want my children to grow up in. Would you prefer "less than ideal"? ...or something else?

I assume a same sex couple is more “ideal” than a single parent family

all things considered, and assuming the single parent remains single, you are probably correct in that statement.

and he is not speaking out against this family type. So ideal or otherwise, if he is ok with single parent families, he must be even more ok with a 2 parent family of any configuration.

You are making a major leap there, so your logic is as flawed as the bridge over the malahide estuary. Because he hasn't spoken out against something doesn't mean he "must be" anything. He simply hasn't said anything.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes i would.

Considering the sarcasm, it means I do not believe that the post was well thought out and balanced.
"Well thought out" means something that has been considered from all perspectives, and "balanced" in this case, means pretty much the same. Now feel free to read over the rest of the posts in this thread so we can all discuss the same thing.

glaston wrote: »

No. If a more diverse couple was better than a less diverse couple then he should be pushing for partners from different etnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Forget him for a moment, I posed a direct question to you, can you answer it please?

Please go back and read the sequence of posts. Purpose of my post was not to prove anything but to explain to the op how the cardinals comments were ignorant and prejudicial (ops words not mine).

I really don't want to do a "you said, then I said, then you said..." here - but your comment was made as rebuttal to my post, and I've addressed it correctly. You however haven't addressed the simple questions I put to you here and here. Would you mind doing that please?

Mikaboshi wrote: »

I fail to see how the "ideal" should determine what is legal.

I certainly didn't suggest that same sex marrage should be illegal, and I don't see where he did.

Generally speaking, I understood, that in law, we determine what is illegal. Now I'm no big city lawer, so perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that that would be the logical way...

I also do not see how gender diversity enhances a childs upbringing, parents are there to provide physical care for the child, food, clothing, shelter and mental/emotional care like education, love, guidance.

Parents are also natural role models. Infants look to their father to see how a man should behave, and to their mother to see how a woman should behave. This is well documented.

Since both sexes have equality in the law and you cannot suggest one gender cannot provide any of the above then two same sex partners are just as capable as different gendered partners in providing for a child and as others posters have already suggested if you do not agree with this then you think we should outlaw single parents as well.

Ow, that sentance hurt my head.
Firstly, both sexes do not have equality in the law.
Secondly, I can, and will suggest that same sex partners can not afford an infant the exact same environment to grow up in. I've described the reasons here. How can a woman act as a male role model to an infant boy? How can a man act as a female role model to a girl? For one, a man has never had a period. How can a homosexual couples relationship fully describe a hetrosexual relationship? (It can come close, but the male/female dynamic simply does not exist)
Now, on the back of that, I'm not suggesting that same sex couple aren't capable of raising children, of course they are. I'm simply saying that, all things even and considered, a male/female couple are better equipped to raise a child - simply by being male and female.

i just dont rank theirs as highly as those with experience, if i have a broken arm i rate the advice of a doctor more relevant than that of my postman so why would anyone rate a priests experience on children's development as being particularly relevant is beyond me.

Why? What if the doctor never broke his/her arm but the postman had? By your logic the doctor would have no experience, but the postman would.

And yet the doctor has studied. A surgeon may never have had a ruptured apendix, but a builder may have - who'd you let preform the operation? The builder?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly the “ideal” has nothing to do with what sex the parents are.

Sure it does. I've provided reasons as to why I believe it does - you haven't, except to claim you are correct. I'd submit that, at this stage, the lack of substance is because you are finding it difficult to find any. Please prove me wrong.

Any configuration of parents is capable of producing ideal and far from ideal parents. This was my point exactly.

Well not in my opinion. I guess, one can propose that any parent is an ideal parent, and therefore the "ideal" is any parent, but thats a bit facetious and not very helpful. So in order to avoid a pointless discussion, I'll ask you:

• Do you believe that there is an ideal type relationship to raise a child?
• Do you believe that an infant can tell the difference between a man and a woman?
• Do you disagree that an infant learns, to an extent, by mimickry?

However I often see people throw around phrases like “role model” like you just did without even saying what that even means.

In a discussion, we generally take certain things for granted. I believe you understood what a role model means. TBH I still do.

You make it sound like this is something essential to have, like air or food.

Nope - just that it's ideal.

There are single parents out there, and same sex parents, who do perfectly well without such outdated stereotypes.

It's not a sterotype.

With the growing equality between the sexes I find your comment about how men and women "should behave" to just be outdated sexist nonsense.

Please point out where I said anyone "should behave". I never said that - you are lieing. Stop. It's rude.

What constitutes a healthy ideal environment for a child therefore appears to have little or nothing to do with the sex of the parents, no matter how much you declare by fiat that it does without back up.

We are not discussing "healthy" environments. We are discussing the "ideal". Stop trying to build a straw man.

Ok Zulu, let us go back over the thread and see where you backed anything up about gay and straight parenting and the ideals shall we? Let me see if I can find anything.

#4
No there is nothing here. Just your opinion on the first post.

#7
Nothing here either.

#15
Nothing at all to do with ideal parenting either.

#20
Here is the first time you say that marriage between a man and a woman is an “ideal”. Three paragraphs. The first says you agree with someone else who thinks this. The second one just declares by fiat that you think this. The third paragraph just says again you agree with yourself essentially. So here you quite literally have just declared it and not backed it up yet. I will keep reading.

#22
This post has nothing to do with the ideal parenting at all.

#32
You just declare it is "more diversity". Maybe in their pants it is, but two separate people will always provide diversity. We are all individuals.

You just declare that having an intimate relationship with both sexes through the parents is necessary. In fact most people have a lot more than their mother or father to relate to one sex. They have peers, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, grand parents and more. So not only have you not shown it to be necessary, you have not even shown your premise that it would even be absent, LOL

Here you first declare that having both “role models” is important without backing this up or like with intimacy that it would be absent.

The rest of the post has nothing to do with your claims so it does not support them, but I do laugh at the point where you move to define “ideal” as being what you personally want.

34
See post #22

36
This is where you make the claim that there is some way a man and woman “should behave”. Literally made up as such a concept does not exist in our culture any more. Men and women are equal human beings and this sexist notion is so out of date I did not think I would see it on this forum. The rest of this post is you repeating your claims about “role models”.

SUMMARY
So I have read over your posts word by word and I find nothing there. So far all you have offered is:

1) Declare by fiat that such a relationship is not the “ideal” one for a child.
2) Refuse to back up 1)
3) Declare by fiat that role models and how men and women should behave is important
4) Refuse to back up 3)
5) Declare by fiat that 3) some how backed up 1)
6) Outright lie that you never said anything about how men and women should behave although the truth is there in black and white for all to see.

So, what did I miss son?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Please re-read post #37, paragraph 3, sentence 2. The answer is already there.

post #37, paragraph 3, sentence 2 wrote:

Safety, nurture, love, education, and stability are much more important than what is in ones pants or what stereotype role model the parent adheres to or not.

...so you do believe that there is an ideal type?

As I said, the rest of your post is throwing around catch phrases like “role models” without defining what you mean,

Role model: it's simple english.

I reject your assertion that there is any way that a man or woman "Should behave" for a child to see in the first place. This is outdated sexism and has no place here. There is no such concept, both men and women behave as people, equal and proud.

It's great to have such high flung ideals, nature however doesn't. It's simply instinct. There is nothing you can do about it. ...but, hey, good luck fighting human nature.

Summary> You clearly have your own opinion, one which can't accept basic human nature. I'm asserting this, as you believe it's "outdated sexism" to suggest that a infant sees it's parents as role models. You fail to acknowledge that men and women are different, you believe that they "simply behave as people".

While thats a nice concept I believe it's simply not true. Men and women - while equal - are very, very different. As there is such fundamental differences in our points of view, there is little point debating this further.

Clearly I'm not going to convince you that men and women are different.

Zulu,

No, since you ask, I do see any reason to think there is an “ideal type”. The diversity of human beings, family configurations, and their mutual successes and failures attests to this being independent of sex.

What I do believe is that there are ideal factors, and the ones I listed can all be very easily shown to be important in child hood development. The number or sex of the parents however I find to be very low on the list of such criteria, and you along with anyone else have also not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. You merely declare “role models” are important without suggesting how or why or what you even mean by this.

You have shown no difference between the sexes that provides for this “ideal” you declare. You merely assert it and run. There is no concept in modern society of how one sex “should behave” and all roles in a child’s life can be perfectly performed by either sex, thus negating any concept that the presence or absence of one sex will have any impact.

Quite literally all you have achieved by this declaration is to prove to everyone that sexist ideas of how men and women should be expected to behave are still alive. Abhorrent really, and therefore no surprise you moved to outright lie and pretend you never said it.

I believe it's simply not true.

Quite clearly you do. However I am less interested in WHAT a person believes than I am in whether there is a basis or not for believing it along side them. You have offered me nothing for the latter. However I do thank you for your time, do not be under the impression it is not appreciated. If you do find any real arguments or evidence (in other words anything where you don’t just assert X, then assert Y, and then assert Y supports X), I will be quite literally AGOG to hear you return with them. Agog.

And really, after post #40 to suggest I have not read the thread really is to literally put your fingers in your ears and start going "lalalalala" making your comment about "manners" doubly ironic. (The comment snipped out of #43 16 minutes after I wrote this that is)

Nozzferrahhtoo as you previously stated: you won't accept the concept that men and women are different, you believe they behave as people.

There really isn't anything left for us to discuss.

Do you accept that men and women are different? Equal, but different?

Men and women are different. That is a concept that I have just declared, with no evidence. Do you accept that - yes or no?

I am sorry, it is too vague a question. Are you talking about mind, body, spirit, capabilities or what? I see no difference between them save what is in their pants.

Aside from that there is not one thing either of them can feel, think, do, offer, say, learn, express or achieve in any way whatsoever.

So unless you are talking sex organs, which would be base and completely off the topic of child rearing, the answer to your question is a no.

Sorry Jakass, I have no time for people who say there is research and then do not cite a scrap of it. We could all go around and claim anything and just say there is research.

However if you want to tell me one of the differences that one does that the other cant or wont, then go right ahead.

Same request to post #55 Zulu. Otherwise you may as well just sit here and keep thanking each other over and over. It will achieve just as much.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Now surly this just plane daft. I ask you to expalin something you said about either my post or the first post.

FYI, I was talking about the first post.

Makes absolutly no sense and rivals on backtracking,.

Not sure what this means,

I ask you to explain what you ment and you reference future texts
This is so daft I cannot even understand you.

I didn't wish to repeat what I'd already said in those "future" posts.

Time travel is great. :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres entire books on it. This is one of many:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=iwdjF4r_OF0C
Parental roles are also a rather big part in child psychology.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Parental+roles+child+psychology

Not answering my question Jakkass, what do these books claims one can do or provide that the other can not.