Liberals Attacking Marriage Again

[John Adams]

While I don't mean to interrupt the 10th Annual Mutual Admiration Society's Circle Jerk and Pancake Breakfast (although I believe someone did ask me to come and give a doomsday prediction and I hate to disappoint), let's please remember that reasonable people can disagree. Or is the suppression of dissent only limited to the fascist right and not the fascist left?

 

That was my request. Thanks for delivering!

 

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone? Fundamentally changing the structure of the family unit doesn't have wide-ranging societal consequences? 

 

And how far are you willing to go?

 

(although I did find it funny that some of the most vocal on this thread, all blown up in full condescending glory, are themselves childless, thereby removing much of the risk of failed social experimentation from their own personal equations, but I digress)

 

822081[/snapback]

 

First, it's a pretty GD good thing that the CTMonkey isn't reproducing--let's all be thankful for that.

 

Second, my daughter has been exposed to a lot of homosexual people: my next-door neighbors are a gay couple, she's had 2 lesbian teachers, and we have some homosexual relatives. So far her "goodness" quotient is pretty high. She could give a rat's ass that some men love men and some women love women. For no reason I understand, she thinks herself a princess and wants to marry a prince. She hasn't shown interest in marrying princesses so far. The social experiment doesn't seem to have gone awry in my own little world.

[X. Benedict]

She hasn't shown interest in marrying princesses so far. The social experiment doesn't seem to have gone awry in my own little world.

822337[/snapback]

 

When I was a kid I wanted to be King Solomon - wise with lots of wives and concubines.

 

I'm such a degenerate.

[Rubes]

I'm just curious....setting aside the issue of numbers of participants and their sexual orientation, what is marriage?

[X. Benedict]

I'm just curious....setting aside the issue of numbers of participants and their sexual orientation, what is marriage?

822445[/snapback]

 

As far as the state is concerned, nothing but a legal contract.

[KurtGodel77]

I love the idea of "homosexual adoption," as if any adoption has anything to do with sexual relationships.  If the worry is that oversexed people will adopt, I've got news for you, there are a few among them filing for "heterosexual adoptions."

 

You also speak as if all hetero families show "healthy interaction between a man and a woman."  They don't, hence the 50% divorce rate.  Regardless, there are examples of hetero relationships working out all around that I'm sure it won't be lost on a kid whose parents are gay.  Studies have shown it's no more likely that an adopted child of gay parents will be gay, and certainly kids even in these situations have grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, other examples in which they'll see this healthy interaction they so desparately need.

 

My point is, if you can't legislate against a single parent household happening (and you shouldn't be able to), how can you legislate against a two-parent household where the parents happen to be of the same sex?

821888[/snapback]

A lot of times, adoption debates seem to be more about the needs of adults than the needs of the children. I tend to focus on the children first. A child is better off with two parents than in a single parent home. I don't care if I'm offending single parents by saying this, or the children of single parents, or anyone else. It's the truth, and a truth that needs to be spoken for the good of the children.

 

Are children better off being raised by a heterosexual couple than a gay couple? I strongly believe they are. This isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a gay rights issue. It's a children's rights issue.

 

I can only speak from my own experience. I imagine myself as I was when I was little. Suppose that my father had moved out, to be replaced by a woman lover for my mother. How would this have impacted my life? I wouldn't have been around adult men any more, at least not very often. I would have missed that. I'd have felt confined by too much estrogen, not enough testosterone. I would have regretted the loss of a male role model. My life would have had something missing.

 

Suppose instead that my mother had walked out, and that I was raised by my father and some guy. How would I have felt about this? For a while it might have been cool. But after a while, I would have felt an emptiness where my mother should have been.

 

Just based on my own self-knowledge, I strongly feel children need mothers and fathers. I realize we can't always give children everything they should have. But at least we should try.

[KurtGodel77]

Goodness?  Care to point to the study showing that heterosexual parents have a greater degree of "goodness" than homosexual parents?

 

These debates are laughable.  Real, actual studies have shown that there isn't any difference.  Let's not cloud the issue with fake studies based on unquantifiable factors and moral biases.  Let's just call it what it is...bigotry and homophobia.  Don't use your faux concern for "the children" as a human shield for your hatred.  Your bigotry-ness is showing.

Once I start hearing words like "bigotry" and "homophobia" I can rest assured the children have been forgotten.

 

I'm skeptical about the studies you mentioned. Which individuals or groups conducted these studies? What were the biases of these groups? What were their funding sources? What were the potential sources of politicization, and how were these guarded against? What would the fate of those conducting these studies have been had they shown that it's better to have a mother and father than two mothers or two fathers? Would these researchers have gotten the same funding? The same praise? The same promotions? Until you begin to answer these types of questions, you can't expect me to take these studies seriously.

[Johnny Coli]

Once I start hearing words like "bigotry" and "homophobia" I can rest assured the children have been forgotten.

 

I'm skeptical about the studies you mentioned. Which individuals or groups conducted these studies? What were the biases of these groups? What were their funding sources? What were the potential sources of politicization, and how were these guarded against? What would the fate of those conducting these studies have been had they shown that it's better to have a mother and father than two mothers or two fathers? Would these researchers have gotten the same funding? The same praise? The same promotions? Until you begin to answer these types of questions, you can't expect me to take these studies seriously.

822552[/snapback]

 

 

You're dancing around the bigotree using children as your human shield and trying to quantify "goodness," and you're skeptical of the studies I might link to?

 

Let's examine this little nugget from your post above, shall we?

I can only speak from my own experience. I imagine myself as I was when I was little. Suppose that my father had moved out, to be replaced by a woman lover for my mother. How would this have impacted my life? I wouldn't have been around adult men any more, at least not very often. I would have missed that. I'd have felt confined by too much estrogen, not enough testosterone. I would have regretted the loss of a male role model. My life would have had something missing.

 

"Confined by too much estrogen"? Sounds like you've got some overbearing mother issues, Kurt. Exactly where did you grow up where if your father left you'd only be interacting with women? Paradise Island?

 

Ask a child from a single family if they'd rather have two loving parents or if they're afraid too many estrogen or testosterone hormones would "confine" them. You can figure out how to explain what hormones are to them using your "daddy" and "mommy" props. Which doll did you reach for first?

 

Here's a study by the American Psychological Association.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

 

Here's an LA Times article from two days ago discussing this topic. It mentions several medical associations and their studies, but we know they're all quacks, eh buddy?

(BTW, that's not a wink suggesting I'm coming on to you.)

Charlotte J. Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a prominent researcher in the field, has found that the purposefulness inherent in same-sex parenting tends to counter any societal disadvantages. "I think what we're seeing overall is pretty positive adjustment on the part of these kids," she said. "What that suggests, I think, is that we may have overrated the role of gender in parenting in our theoretical notions about these matters."

 

Over the last decade, that general proposition has been embraced, to varying degrees, by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Assn., the American Psychological Assn., the American Psychiatric Assn. and a variety of child welfare groups.

 

The psychological association holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents."

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a 2002 review of the literature, also found no negative effects. "Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children's activities," the group wrote.

 

Even social science articles that oppose same-sex parenting typically do not claim significant evidence of dire consequences for children.

 

Clearly the insidious gay cabal has threatened all of these medical associations and all of their members. How will we ever stop their gay agenda?

[KurtGodel77]

Here's a study by the American Psychological Association.

Here's an LA Times article from two days ago discussing this topic.  It mentions several medical associations and their studies, but we know they're all quacks, eh buddy?   

(BTW, that's not a wink suggesting I'm coming on to you.)

Clearly the insidious gay cabal has threatened all of these medical associations and all of their members.  How will we ever stop their gay agenda?

822596[/snapback]

Earlier, I tried as hard as I could to remember what I was like as a boy, and to figure out what my feelings would have been had my parents been of the same gender. Your decision to turn that into a personal attack says a lot more about you than it does about me. Your other points were a little more germaine to this discussion, so I'll address them here.

 

The LA Times article had this to say

"Ideological pressures," they concluded, "constrain intellectual development in this field…. Because anti-gay scholars seek evidence of harm, sympathetic researchers defensively stress its absence."

 

As for the American Psychological Association, their writing guidelines have this to say

Similarly, when referring to women or minority groups, authors should avoid the passive voice, subordinate clauses, and the "understood" subject. The passive voice suggests individuals are acted on rather than being actors

The fact that writing guidelines are different for women and minorities than they are for white males strongly savors of Political Correctness over objective truth.

 

Then there's this tidbit

Recognizing a general need for gay-affirmative scientific research, the APA Board for Social and Ethical Responsibility in Psychology (BSERP), in 1985, convened a Task Force on Non-Homophobic Research. The task force was charged to "assemble and prepare materials that can be used for educating psychologists about techniques for preventing homophobic bias in research"

Did they say they recognized a need for "unbiased" research into sexual orientation? No. Even in their own words, they recognized "a general need for gay affirmative scientific research."

 

Then there's this:

Because American society is heterosexist, however, research can reflect cultural ignorance, biases, and prejudices surrounding sexuality and sexual orientation. During the past 15 years, psychologists and other social and behavioral scientists have taken significant steps toward rejecting the negative value assumptions underlying earlier views of sexuality, and have begun to remove the stigma so long associated with homosexual and bisexual orientations. This has led to a new research paradigm that recognizes the legitimacy of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual orientations, behaviors, relationships, and lifestyles.

 

Because this affirmative approach is such a recent development in the social sciences, many implicit and overt prejudices remain to be overcome. Overcoming these prejudices will lead to better science, as researchers recognize the many ways in which heterosexist bias has influenced formulation of research questions, sampling procedures, methods and measures, and the interpretation of results.

 

Suppose that children are better off having both a mother and a father. Do you really think the American Psychological Association would tell us this? Because that's not the vibe I'm getting at all.

[Johnny Coli]

Here's a snarky opinion piece in the Boston Globe today from novelist Steve Kluger, representing the "Homosexual Agenda" and taking responsibilty for everything that's gone wrong in the US.

Blame it all on the Gay Agenda

IT'S FINALLY happened. We've been exposed. With the recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court requiring equal marital rights for same-gender couples, the Homosexual Agenda has been outed by our spiritual leaders -- who urge Americans to vote Republican on Election Day in order to preserve our few remaining national values.

 

[snip]

 

The truth began to emerge last week when a male couple was wed in Massachusetts. Twenty minutes later, three heterosexual marriages fell apart in Kansas City. Under ordinary circumstances, one of our operatives would have been present to hide the evidence under a stack of Liza Minnelli CDs, but he was watching an episode of "I Love Lucy" with his 9-year-old niece so that she could go forth and recruit her young friends in fourth grade.

 

[snip]

 

So before you vote on Nov. 7, remember that the escalating decay we suffer as a nation is not due to a dishonest and immoral war, nor to an ethic that drives school children to acquire assault weapons for show-and-tell, nor to a callous disregard of the natural resources that we've plundered into near-extinction. Instead, blame it all on two anonymous guys in New Jersey who just want to pledge their lives to one another.

 

A perfect example showing that the most effective way to fight bigotry, racism, and stupidity is to throw it right back in their face as a joke, using their own hatred as the punchline.

[erynthered]

Here's a snarky opinion piece in the Boston Globe today from novelist Steve Kluger, representing the "Homosexual Agenda" and taking responsibilty for everything that's gone wrong in the US.

Blame it all on the Gay Agenda

A perfect example showing that the most effective way to fight bigotry, racism, and stupidity is to throw it right back in their face as a joke, using their own hatred as the punchline.

823251[/snapback]

 

 

You just cant leave dead dogs lie, can you?