Total Posts:219|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions to the "Biological Parents" Brigade

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) I'm sure it may come as a shock to you, but do you really not get that sexual orientation and gender of parents is irrelevant since, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise children?

2) Do you not realise how particularly bigoted your stance is, not only against homosexuals, but against rape victims as a logical extension? It's not homosexuals or their advocates who are placing a higher priority on any "perverted sexual desires", it's your hypocritical desire to give rapists their victims, and their victim's child, that places higher priority on perverted sexual desires.

3) You guys claim that a child cannot have "two fathers" or "two mothers", but do you really not understand that the reason why a non-biological father/mother is filling the parental role is because s/he takes a main role in taking care of the children, like any natural parent? A same sex parent would just as easily be able to fulfil the role of being, to quote one of the prominent bigots on this site: "the married partner of the biological parent, who is fulfilling the role of the non-custodial parent, in the child"s daily life".

4) Do you not recognise that the natural fallout of your dogmatic "biological parents ONLY!" position is that of giving rapists their victims' children, since if a victim is with a boyfriend or even a husband, the boyfriend/husband can't ever be a parent to that child since he isn't the biological father?

5) Gay people are defining their own marriage and family, and who the hell are you to deny them that definition? Any reasonably competent homosexual pair should be allowed to adopt any children they can support and raise to adulthood, as well as have the right to raise them in a stable family household where the two parents love each other.

6) Are you aware of the Appeal to Nature fallacy? An example; no one could ever logically claim that houses are "natural". And yet to claim that houses are necessarily bad would be seen by most people to be the height of stupidity.

7) The central claim of your general arguments appears to be that children need both a mother and a father figure who conform to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles (by the way, this is why we bring up single parent households in response, since by their very nature they lack one or the other). The obvious corollary to this claim of yours is that homosexual couples necessarily lack one or the other. As far as I can see, you guys have yet to prove either of these premises (hint: sex does not always conform to gender). Please do so.

8) I, like most everyone here, would like to know why you guys think children need both a culturally standard male and a culturally standard female as parents. I'd like to know why a man can't play a woman's role, a woman can't play a man's role, why you think this assumption doesn't apply to single parents, why you believe so strongly in such rigidly enforced gender role, and whether or not you realize that when you make the naturalistic fallacy everyone here understands you say it because you're a hateful bigot.

9) I mean seriously, excluding gestation and lactation, what, exactly, can a father do that a mother cannot, and a mother do that a father cannot, with the exception of the initial sperm and egg donation and incubation/breastfeeding? What are male and female parental roles?

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition? We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal. We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 3:37:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote:
1) I'm sure it may come as a shock to you, but do you really not get that sexual orientation and gender of parents is irrelevant since, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise children?

2) Do you not realise how particularly bigoted your stance is, not only against homosexuals, but against rape victims as a logical extension? It's not homosexuals or their advocates who are placing a higher priority on any "perverted sexual desires", it's your hypocritical desire to give rapists their victims, and their victim's child, that places higher priority on perverted sexual desires.

3) You guys claim that a child cannot have "two fathers" or "two mothers", but do you really not understand that the reason why a non-biological father/mother is filling the parental role is because s/he takes a main role in taking care of the children, like any natural parent? A same sex parent would just as easily be able to fulfil the role of being, to quote one of the prominent bigots on this site: "the married partner of the biological parent, who is fulfilling the role of the non-custodial parent, in the child"s daily life".

4) Do you not recognise that the natural fallout of your dogmatic "biological parents ONLY!" position is that of giving rapists their victims' children, since if a victim is with a boyfriend or even a husband, the boyfriend/husband can't ever be a parent to that child since he isn't the biological father?

5) Gay people are defining their own marriage and family, and who the hell are you to deny them that definition? Any reasonably competent homosexual pair should be allowed to adopt any children they can support and raise to adulthood, as well as have the right to raise them in a stable family household where the two parents love each other.

6) Are you aware of the Appeal to Nature fallacy? An example; no one could ever logically claim that houses are "natural". And yet to claim that houses are necessarily bad would be seen by most people to be the height of stupidity.

7) The central claim of your general arguments appears to be that children need both a mother and a father figure who conform to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles (by the way, this is why we bring up single parent households in response, since by their very nature they lack one or the other). The obvious corollary to this claim of yours is that homosexual couples necessarily lack one or the other. As far as I can see, you guys have yet to prove either of these premises (hint: sex does not always conform to gender). Please do so.

8) I, like most everyone here, would like to know why you guys think children need both a culturally standard male and a culturally standard female as parents. I'd like to know why a man can't play a woman's role, a woman can't play a man's role, why you think this assumption doesn't apply to single parents, why you believe so strongly in such rigidly enforced gender role, and whether or not you realize that when you make the naturalistic fallacy everyone here understands you say it because you're a hateful bigot.

9) I mean seriously, excluding gestation and lactation, what, exactly, can a father do that a mother cannot, and a mother do that a father cannot, with the exception of the initial sperm and egg donation and incubation/breastfeeding? What are male and female parental roles?

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition? We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal. We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

JonMilne Murder is WRONG!
Bigamy is WRONG!
Abortion is WRONG!

AND Homosexual acts are WRONG!
Will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!!!

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:9
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

JonMilne God tells you.. those practicing homosexuality are WRONG!!

JonMilne READ THIS (below) your argument is with God your maker!!
Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 4:35:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 3:37:06 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote:
1) I'm sure it may come as a shock to you, but do you really not get that sexual orientation and gender of parents is irrelevant since, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise children?

2) Do you not realise how particularly bigoted your stance is, not only against homosexuals, but against rape victims as a logical extension? It's not homosexuals or their advocates who are placing a higher priority on any "perverted sexual desires", it's your hypocritical desire to give rapists their victims, and their victim's child, that places higher priority on perverted sexual desires.

3) You guys claim that a child cannot have "two fathers" or "two mothers", but do you really not understand that the reason why a non-biological father/mother is filling the parental role is because s/he takes a main role in taking care of the children, like any natural parent? A same sex parent would just as easily be able to fulfil the role of being, to quote one of the prominent bigots on this site: "the married partner of the biological parent, who is fulfilling the role of the non-custodial parent, in the child"s daily life".

4) Do you not recognise that the natural fallout of your dogmatic "biological parents ONLY!" position is that of giving rapists their victims' children, since if a victim is with a boyfriend or even a husband, the boyfriend/husband can't ever be a parent to that child since he isn't the biological father?

5) Gay people are defining their own marriage and family, and who the hell are you to deny them that definition? Any reasonably competent homosexual pair should be allowed to adopt any children they can support and raise to adulthood, as well as have the right to raise them in a stable family household where the two parents love each other.

6) Are you aware of the Appeal to Nature fallacy? An example; no one could ever logically claim that houses are "natural". And yet to claim that houses are necessarily bad would be seen by most people to be the height of stupidity.

7) The central claim of your general arguments appears to be that children need both a mother and a father figure who conform to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles (by the way, this is why we bring up single parent households in response, since by their very nature they lack one or the other). The obvious corollary to this claim of yours is that homosexual couples necessarily lack one or the other. As far as I can see, you guys have yet to prove either of these premises (hint: sex does not always conform to gender). Please do so.

8) I, like most everyone here, would like to know why you guys think children need both a culturally standard male and a culturally standard female as parents. I'd like to know why a man can't play a woman's role, a woman can't play a man's role, why you think this assumption doesn't apply to single parents, why you believe so strongly in such rigidly enforced gender role, and whether or not you realize that when you make the naturalistic fallacy everyone here understands you say it because you're a hateful bigot.

9) I mean seriously, excluding gestation and lactation, what, exactly, can a father do that a mother cannot, and a mother do that a father cannot, with the exception of the initial sperm and egg donation and incubation/breastfeeding? What are male and female parental roles?

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition? We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal. We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

JonMilne Murder is WRONG!
Bigamy is WRONG!
Abortion is WRONG!

AND Homosexual acts are WRONG!
Will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!!!


Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:9
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

JonMilne God tells you.. those practicing homosexuality are WRONG!!

JonMilne READ THIS (below) your argument is with God your maker!!
Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Sorry JonMilne, it looks like DogKnox easily defeated your lucid, rational, well-explained list of points by throwing the bible at it. Therefore he clearly wins by default.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Dogknox
Posts: 5,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drayson You said.. Sorry JonMilne, it looks like DogKnox easily defeated your lucid, rational, well-explained list of points by throwing the bible at it. Therefore he clearly wins by default.

I reply.. Murder is WRONG!!
Adultery is WRONG... The VOWS of Marriage is what says it is WRONG!
Stealing is WRONG!!!
Abortion is WRONG!!
Bigamy is WRONG!!
And Homosexual activity is also WRONG!!

All things that go against LOVE are WRONG!!
Logic alone says it is wrong... Never mind the words of God! God tells you it is wrong.. WHY?
Drayson Why would God tell you it is WRONG??! Has it ever happened that God would steer man wrong!?
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 3:10:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dogknox, before you even think of trying to use the Bible to claim that homosexuality is wrong, you have to demonstrate that ANY God actually exists first, let alone YOUR Christian God, and since there's a long history of debunked God claims, your using the Bible to try and prove your point is as meaningless to me as a Muslim using his Koran or a Muslim using his Torah a Sikh/Hindu/Mormon/Scientologist using their holy texts to try and prove their points. Unless you can actually come up with real, tangible proof of your God, then your words mean nothing.

Secondly, the religious position against homosexuality is massively incoherent and hypocritical. There's a persistent argument that same-sex marriage is forbidden by the bible's definition and proscriptions for marriage, which makes me wonder whether these folks have actually read the bible. The first biblical mention of marriage is Lamech's marriage to two women - Adah and Zillah - in Genesis 4:19. The great King Solomon had "seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines", a serious contender for the bigamy world record. In Genesis 29:3 Jacob works seven years to marry Rachel but Laban switches her with Leah and Jacob accidentally deflowers her in the dark, forcing Jacob to take her as a wife and work seven more years in a passage that simultaneously endorses plural marriage, women as property, shotgun weddings, and fraud while implying that you apparently shouldn't talk to your lover with the lights off. Abraham, the central figure in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, couldn't have kids with his wife Sara so he had a son with his maid Hagar before Sara gave birth to Isaac, at which point Abraham had no reason to keep Hagar and their son around so he exiled them to the desert before being commanded by God to kill Isaac. Traditional biblical family values are such a mishmash of divinely sanctioned bigamy and infidelity that by the time Lot pimps out his daughters before having sex with them himself or Noah gets drunk and molested by his son Ham (for which God creates black people, WTF) it's hardly worth raising an eyebrow.

But those are stories. What about specific rules? In addition to moral fables the bible also lays out clear rules for polygamy and declares that the divorced must never remarry (divorced women are like prostitutes in that regard). Do marry your dead brother's wife (no, really) because she is not allowed to remarry outside her family. Or not, especially if she has sensual desires. Jesus himself commands his followers to not to marry at all, although if a woman must marry she can only marry someone from her father's tribal clan (especially not foreign women or daughters of a foreign God) with a well-defined procedure for complaint if anyone strays from these rules. And only marry virgins, unless they are getting along in years. Marriage is even a valid tactic of warfare, for crippling all the enemy with circumcisions before you invade and kill them.

So where's the rule about same-sex marriage? The famous line in Leviticus only applies to male/male sex (which is still legal) rather than female/female marriage (which isn't) and comes right after mandatory animal sacrifice and before the prohibition of mixed-textile fabrics or beard-cutting or tattooing. Romans condemns men "inflamed with lust for one another" in the same chapter declaring that the punishment for gossip, disobeying parents, not to mention that the penalty for glorification of animal pictures is death. (so if you've ever gone "Awww" at a picture of cute cats, you're screwed) 1 Corinthians 6 condemns "homosexual offenders" along with drunkards, lawsuits, and civil mediation. 1 Timothy 1 condemns "perverts" along with "myths and endless genealogies" and "meaningless talk".

My take-away lesson here is that a clean-shaven gossipy lawyer dumping his brother's widow to marry a babbly widowed tipsy Hindu genealogist that his parents don't like while wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt and a "Mom" tattoo, with a caterer specializing in Crab Rangoon and blood sausage from animals who aren't slaughtered and burned by a priest is many, many times worse in God's eyes than two linen-clad bearded gay guys marrying each other.

Religious texts are Rorschach tests. Believers' inherent and evolving moral sense dictates which parts of a text they follow or ignore rather than the text dictating what they actually do with their lives. If you think the bible forbids gay marriage it's because you picked that line, not because that crazy line is any more important than any other crazy line. The good news is that it's easier to change a religious person's mind than it might seem at first. If they can avoid beating Sunday wood-gatherers to death they can learn to tolerate a same-sex couple.

I can already hear your religious objection to this post. "Nice snark Jon, but you're not religious. You can't pretend to dictate let alone understand my theology. You can't tell me that I have to grow a beard or can't hire a lawyer, your rules don't apply to me. It's irrelevant to my life how you read my bible." And that's true. It is completely unfair for me to force my interpretation on you or anyone else who doesn't accept it. By that token it's completely unfair for you to force your interpretation of Leviticus, Corinthians, or Timothy on anyone else who doesn't accept it - your rules don't apply to me. Avoid gay sex, shellfish, or cotton-poly stretch pants in your own church and your own home but don't pass laws telling me what I can't do based on your reading of your text.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:13:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:50:25 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Drayson You said.. Sorry JonMilne, it looks like DogKnox easily defeated your lucid, rational, well-explained list of points by throwing the bible at it. Therefore he clearly wins by default.

I reply.. Murder is WRONG!!
Adultery is WRONG... The VOWS of Marriage is what says it is WRONG!
Stealing is WRONG!!!
Abortion is WRONG!!
Bigamy is WRONG!!
And Homosexual activity is also WRONG!!

All things that go against LOVE are WRONG!!
Logic alone says it is wrong... Never mind the words of God! God tells you it is wrong.. WHY?
Drayson Why would God tell you it is WRONG??! Has it ever happened that God would steer man wrong!?

Hence any and all opposition to loving same sex couples being permitted to marry or raise children in a loving environment is WRONG.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:19:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:50:25 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Drayson You said.. Sorry JonMilne, it looks like DogKnox easily defeated your lucid, rational, well-explained list of points by throwing the bible at it. Therefore he clearly wins by default.

Loving someone of the same gender is WRONG!!

All things that go against LOVE are WRONG!!

Yeah...that's a totally consistent and coherent ideology you've got there.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 10:36:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote:
1) I'm sure it may come as a shock to you, but do you really not get that sexual orientation and gender of parents is irrelevant since, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise children?

No, I do not see the gender of parents as irrelevant to kids, just like you don't see the gender of your sexual partner as irrelevant to you.

2) Do you not realise how particularly bigoted your stance is, not only against homosexuals, but against rape victims as a logical extension? It's not homosexuals or their advocates who are placing a higher priority on any "perverted sexual desires", it's your hypocritical desire to give rapists their victims, and their victim's child, that places higher priority on perverted sexual desires.

This has nothing at all to do with rape victims. I do not see it as discriminatory or bigoted, to say that children deserve a mother and father more than homosexuals deserve something that they cannot create for themselves.

3) You guys claim that a child cannot have "two fathers" or "two mothers", but do you really not understand that the reason why a non-biological father/mother is filling the parental role is because s/he takes a main role in taking care of the children, like any natural parent? A same sex parent would just as easily be able to fulfil the role of being, to quote one of the prominent bigots on this site: "the married partner of the biological parent, who is fulfilling the role of the non-custodial parent, in the child"s daily life".

Any "natural parent" would be an opposite sex partner, thus we wouldn't need to have this discussion if homosexuals could fill the role of "natural parents". You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you claim on one hand that gender is unimportant, then on the other hand say that it's important to you as a homosexual. If gender is truly a non-issue then it shouldn't matter whether you partner with males or females, so why not partner with an opposite sex partner for child rearing purposes?? Bottom line is that there are fundamental differences between male and female, and it is those differences that provide the best sense of balance and identity to children, that's why the biological parents raising the child in a loving home is the gold standard. Same sex parenting encourages children to be brought into the world knowing that the child is going to be deprived of one or more of its biological parents.

4) Do you not recognise that the natural fallout of your dogmatic "biological parents ONLY!" position is that of giving rapists their victims' children, since if a victim is with a boyfriend or even a husband, the boyfriend/husband can't ever be a parent to that child since he isn't the biological father?

False analogy again. Of course there are going to be extreme exceptions to the rule, and no one will hold it against a rape victim. That's just silly.

5) Gay people are defining their own marriage and family, and who the hell are you to deny them that definition? Any reasonably competent homosexual pair should be allowed to adopt any children they can support and raise to adulthood, as well as have the right to raise them in a stable family household where the two parents love each other.

The fact that you need to redefine marriage and family is proof that homosexuals don't fit. Marriage is a man and a woman, a family is a father, mother, and their children. Any deviation from that fact means that something went wrong with the natural order and structure of the family. Those deviations should be minimized as much as possible, but homosexuality being included in the family structure actually encourages people to bring children into the world knowing full well that they will be deprived of one of their parents. That's just wrong any way you slice it.

6) Are you aware of the Appeal to Nature fallacy? An example; no one could ever logically claim that houses are "natural". And yet to claim that houses are necessarily bad would be seen by most people to be the height of stupidity.

Housing serves a valid function. Homosexual attempts at parenting and homosexuality in general, provide no valid function to society and is actually a detriment.

7) The central claim of your general arguments appears to be that children need both a mother and a father figure who conform to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles (by the way, this is why we bring up single parent households in response, since by their very nature they lack one or the other). The obvious corollary to this claim of yours is that homosexual couples necessarily lack one or the other. As far as I can see, you guys have yet to prove either of these premises (hint: sex does not always conform to gender). Please do so.

You asked this in the other thread. What are you asking me to prove?? That boys are male and girls are female?? That there is a difference between the two genders?? I'm not really clear here.

Single parent homes are another one of the exceptions that happens in the real world. The evidence shows that kids fare better in homes with both a mother and father, so single parent homes, like adoptive and other necessary arrangements, should be minimized for the betterment of children. I'm sure you'll turn that into me saying that single parents or adoptive parents aren't good parents, though that isn't what I mean. But the fact is that people should be encouraged to have children inside the bonds of marriage, and raise the kids that they have in a loving home, that's where they do best.

8) I, like most everyone here, would like to know why you guys think children need both a culturally standard male and a culturally standard female as parents. I'd like to know why a man can't play a woman's role, a woman can't play a man's role, why you think this assumption doesn't apply to single parents, why you believe so strongly in such rigidly enforced gender role, and whether or not you realize that when you make the naturalistic fallacy everyone here understands you say it because you're a hateful bigot.

Like it or not, there is a difference between men and women, thus there are differences between mothers and fathers. Real men and real women are different and each provides the child with a different set of qualities, together as a couple they provide the child with a good balance, and good role models for future relationships, that same sex partners do not provide. By being homosexuals, they have a distorted, demented view of gender from the outset. No homosexual male can provide a good role model to show a boy how to become a man, since he is not a real man himself. Same goes for lesbians trying to turn a young girl into a lady. If those kids actually turn into a real man or a lady, then they got that positive influence somewhere other than in the home.

Don't poke me with that bigot pole when you yourself have it crammed so far up your own a$$ that you'd need a tow truck to get it out. You don't even respect people's individuality and freedom enough to allow them the luxury of differing with your political stance without referring to them as intolerant bigots or homophobes. That's as bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and childish as an individual can get, so you have no room to call anyone else a bigot.

9) I mean seriously, excluding gestation and lactation, what, exactly, can a father do that a mother cannot,

Among other things, be a father. Show his kids how to be a man, and how to be a husband and father. That's not something a woman can do.

and a mother do that a father cannot, with the exception of the initial sperm and egg donation and incubation/breastfeeding?

Among other things, the mother can show her kids how to be a mother, and how a man and woman interact together, combining qualities to make the family stronger. That's not something a man can do.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 11:09:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote:
1) I'm sure it may come as a shock to you, but do you really not get that sexual orientation and gender of parents is irrelevant since, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise children?

2) Do you not realise how particularly bigoted your stance is, not only against homosexuals, but against rape victims as a logical extension? It's not homosexuals or their advocates who are placing a higher priority on any "perverted sexual desires", it's your hypocritical desire to give rapists their victims, and their victim's child, that places higher priority on perverted sexual desires.

3) You guys claim that a child cannot have "two fathers" or "two mothers", but do you really not understand that the reason why a non-biological father/mother is filling the parental role is because s/he takes a main role in taking care of the children, like any natural parent? A same sex parent would just as easily be able to fulfil the role of being, to quote one of the prominent bigots on this site: "the married partner of the biological parent, who is fulfilling the role of the non-custodial parent, in the child"s daily life".

4) Do you not recognise that the natural fallout of your dogmatic "biological parents ONLY!" position is that of giving rapists their victims' children, since if a victim is with a boyfriend or even a husband, the boyfriend/husband can't ever be a parent to that child since he isn't the biological father?

5) Gay people are defining their own marriage and family, and who the hell are you to deny them that definition? Any reasonably competent homosexual pair should be allowed to adopt any children they can support and raise to adulthood, as well as have the right to raise them in a stable family household where the two parents love each other.

6) Are you aware of the Appeal to Nature fallacy? An example; no one could ever logically claim that houses are "natural". And yet to claim that houses are necessarily bad would be seen by most people to be the height of stupidity.

7) The central claim of your general arguments appears to be that children need both a mother and a father figure who conform to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles (by the way, this is why we bring up single parent households in response, since by their very nature they lack one or the other). The obvious corollary to this claim of yours is that homosexual couples necessarily lack one or the other. As far as I can see, you guys have yet to prove either of these premises (hint: sex does not always conform to gender). Please do so.

8) I, like most everyone here, would like to know why you guys think children need both a culturally standard male and a culturally standard female as parents. I'd like to know why a man can't play a woman's role, a woman can't play a man's role, why you think this assumption doesn't apply to single parents, why you believe so strongly in such rigidly enforced gender role, and whether or not you realize that when you make the naturalistic fallacy everyone here understands you say it because you're a hateful bigot.

9) I mean seriously, excluding gestation and lactation, what, exactly, can a father do that a mother cannot, and a mother do that a father cannot, with the exception of the initial sperm and egg donation and incubation/breastfeeding? What are male and female parental roles?

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition? We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal. We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

Didn't God create a clever delusion for us all to live with? He made us believe that our biological parents are really our parents when in actuality, He's the father of us all, because He's the Creator, not our biological parents.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for. The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type. Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians. Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure, or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information. Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories. The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant?? Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids. It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option. I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition?

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for. The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type. Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians. Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure, or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information. Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories. The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant?? Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids. It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option. I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition?

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 4:49:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:40:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for. The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type. Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians. Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure, or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information. Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories. The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant?? Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids. It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option. I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition?

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?

I suggest that you ask the other side to provide examples of societies that have survived.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:49:52 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 4:40:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for. The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type. Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians. Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure, or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information. Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories. The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant?? Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids. It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option. I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition?

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?

I suggest that you ask the other side to provide examples of societies that have survived.

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:49:52 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 4:40:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:41:10 AM, JonMilne wrote

10) Do you not realise that with your diatribe against "sexual partners" being made equal that that is in fact EXACTLY what you are promoting? All a man has to do to fulfil that requirement is be a sexual partner. He could be an abuser or a deadbeat or, as I keep pointing out, a serial rapist.

See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for. The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type. Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians. Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure, or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

11) Why do you hate science? The science has already spoken. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by same-sex parents red to those raised by their biological parents, solely attributable to the fact that the couple is same-sex. There is no measurable detriment to children raised by non-biological parents compared to those raised by their biological parents. The only measurable detriment to children raised by a single parent compared to those raised by their biological parents is the loss of the resources that would be provided by a second parent, not only in money, but also in time, attention, and care.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information. Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

12) Please take some time to view the video. It reveals a quite inconvenient truth to you guys: http://www.youtube.com...

I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories. The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant?? Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids. It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option. I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

13) Do you not realise how ridiculous your logic is when you appeal to tradition?

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

We provide examples of how the marriage institution has varied over time. But you guys say that that doesn't matter, because there was always (at least one) woman and (at least one) man, so therefore gay marriage is still redefining marriage, and apparently that is still a Big Deal.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?

I suggest that you ask the other side to provide examples of societies that have survived.

Um....a vast majority of civilizations and societal structures have gone extinct.

This is a bit like asking for an examples of societies that have had bead-based counting systems but hasn't gone extinct. And if one is not given, bead-based counting systems are why society crumbles.

How about you actually answer the man's question instead of throwing out a non-seq
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:20:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
e the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.
nt. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?

I suggest that you ask the other side to provide examples of societies that have survived.

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...

The funny part is the reason the only way to explain away these results is to use what Medic and apparently (haven't listened to him) Adam Corolla deride as bad argument: that statistically a gay couple is more likely to want a child and be in a socio-economic environment in which to provide for the child because there's no such thing as a gay "unwanted pregnancy."

And when you do that, you find that once you control for stable parents and cohesion, there is no discernible different in being raised by two men or a man and woman.

"In recent years, seemingly
partly on the basis of advances in the robustness of the body of research, reviewers have been more
confident to state that not only has research indicated that parenting by same-sex parents is not poorer,
but that it appears, in some aspects at least, likely to be somewhat better. Similarly, research has not
only indicated that the outcomes of children of same-sex parents are not poorer, but that outcomes
would seem to be likely to be at least as favourable (e.g., see Biblarz & Stacey, 2006; Coontz, 1997;
Johnson & O"Connor, 2002; Kershaw, 2000; McNair, 2004; Millbank, 2003; Patterson, 2000; Stacey
& Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005; VLRC, 2007). Reviewers have also increasingly taken note of the links
between positive parenting practices and children"s experiences and outcomes. For example, summary."

You can find the names of all the articles at the bibliography of the following article from the Australian Psychological Society:

http://www.psychology.org.au...

This is true EVEN WHEN you account for family wanting or not wanting the kids:
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:24:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:20:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
e the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.
nt. A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

We provide examples of how families vary, and how there are plenty of families that aren't limited to mommy, daddy, and kids. The response you guys give to that is to say "well, none of those have two daddies, or two mommies"! Ergo gay people are redefining families! So, basically, doesn't this mean that you amount to little more than slavish adherents to the status quo, a bunch capricious preservers of tradition for tradition's sake, and a bunch of people who will use any rhetorical trick they can to put themselves in direct opposition to progress and equality?

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman. You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

You said that no society that allows same-sex marriage has lasted. Can you provide examples?

I suggest that you ask the other side to provide examples of societies that have survived.

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...

The funny part is the reason the only way to explain away these results is to use what Medic and apparently (haven't listened to him) Adam Corolla deride as bad argument: that statistically a gay couple is more likely to want a child and be in a socio-economic environment in which to provide for the child because there's no such thing as a gay "unwanted pregnancy."

And when you do that, you find that once you control for stable parents and cohesion, there is no discernible different in being raised by two men or a man and woman.

"In recent years, seemingly
partly on the basis of advances in the robustness of the body of research, reviewers have been more
confident to state that not only has research indicated that parenting by same-sex parents is not poorer,
but that it appears, in some aspects at least, likely to be somewhat better. Similarly, research has not
only indicated that the outcomes of children of same-sex parents are not poorer, but that outcomes
would seem to be likely to be at least as favourable (e.g., see Biblarz & Stacey, 2006; Coontz, 1997;
Johnson & O"Connor, 2002; Kershaw, 2000; McNair, 2004; Millbank, 2003; Patterson, 2000; Stacey
& Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005; VLRC, 2007). Reviewers have also increasingly taken note of the links
between positive parenting practices and children"s experiences and outcomes. For example, summary."

You can find the names of all the articles at the bibliography of the following article from the Australian Psychological Society:

http://www.psychology.org.au...

This is true EVEN WHEN you account for family wanting or not wanting the kids:

Even if they did accept that argument, then we can conclude that the group of gays who desire children are better caretakers than the group of heteros who desire children. When we are looking at comparing caretaking between gays and heteros, we really only need to take into account those who will actually get children.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Assuming that the claim of some homosexuals that some societies have allowed homosexual so called marriage in the past, is true, we know that those societies no longer exist today, while heterosexual marriage continues as it always has. Unless you know of some information that I'm missing, the claim is supported.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...

You don't have a problem with the chief researcher being a homosexual father himself, and recruiting other homosexuals, rather than using random sampling?? Or the fact that he simply asked the homosexuals to self-report, rather than actually basing the results on the kids themselves?? Sorry but this one is about as untrustworthy as a study can be, if all these things are true.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:01:39 PM, Wnope wrote:

Um....a vast majority of civilizations and societal structures have gone extinct.

This is a bit like asking for an examples of societies that have had bead-based counting systems but hasn't gone extinct. And if one is not given, bead-based counting systems are why society cr

I didn't say that homosexuals ended the society. All I said was that hetero marriage has continued, but homosexuals haven't been allowed to marry, if they ever were. That must mean that people realize the value of hetero marriage, and realize that homosexual unions are of no value.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:29:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:01:39 PM, Wnope wrote:

Um....a vast majority of civilizations and societal structures have gone extinct.

This is a bit like asking for an examples of societies that have had bead-based counting systems but hasn't gone extinct. And if one is not given, bead-based counting systems are why society cr

I didn't say that homosexuals ended the society. All I said was that hetero marriage has continued, but homosexuals haven't been allowed to marry, if they ever were. That must mean that people realize the value of hetero marriage, and realize that homosexual unions are of no value.

Legality =/= right.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 6:39:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:25:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Assuming that the claim of some homosexuals that some societies have allowed homosexual so called marriage in the past, is true, we know that those societies no longer exist today, while heterosexual marriage continues as it always has. Unless you know of some information that I'm missing, the claim is supported.

I don't know if any societies allowed homosexual marriage until recent history.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...

You don't have a problem with the chief researcher being a homosexual father himself,

I don't discriminate.

and recruiting other homosexuals, rather than using random sampling?? Or the fact that he simply asked the homosexuals to self-report, rather than actually basing the results on the kids themselves?? Sorry but this one is about as untrustworthy as a study can be, if all these things are true.

Can you verify this conspiracy theory?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 7:32:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 6:39:34 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 8/10/2013 6:25:59 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 5:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

You are the one making the claim. You support it. Since you cannot, I am moving on to another claim.

Assuming that the claim of some homosexuals that some societies have allowed homosexual so called marriage in the past, is true, we know that those societies no longer exist today, while heterosexual marriage continues as it always has. Unless you know of some information that I'm missing, the claim is supported.

I don't know if any societies allowed homosexual marriage until recent history.

Studies have found that kids of gay parents are happier and healthier than those of strait parents.
http://www.advocate.com...

You don't have a problem with the chief researcher being a homosexual father himself,

I don't discriminate.

and recruiting other homosexuals, rather than using random sampling?? Or the fact that he simply asked the homosexuals to self-report, rather than actually basing the results on the kids themselves?? Sorry but this one is about as untrustworthy as a study can be, if all these things are true.

Can you verify this conspiracy theory?

Check the study's methodological problems. Mark Regnerus is a very popular guy that you guys trust a lot so here's what he says...

http://www.nationalreview.com...
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 8:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Part 1:

At 8/10/2013 10:36:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
No, I do not see the gender of parents as irrelevant to kids, just like you don't see the gender of your sexual partner as irrelevant to you.

Non-sequitur. There are two fundamental disconnects in this argument.
a) Sexual preferences are in no way analogous to parenting capacity.
b) Preferring a certain gender combination in a sexual relationship does not invalidade other people choosing other combinations.

As an heterosexual myself, gender is important to ME when choosing MY sexual partners, but that does not affect the choices of other people. Likewise, if I choose to partner with a woman to raise a child, that does not mean I should or would preclude two men (or two women, or a single parent, or any other possibility) to do the same.

You are still refusing to specify still how genitalia are relevant to parenting. How do parents use their genitals to raise children?

This has nothing at all to do with rape victims. I do not see it as discriminatory or bigoted, to say that children deserve a mother and father more than homosexuals deserve something that they cannot create for themselves.

Because homosexuals are sterile?

I guess infertile heterosexual couples are sh!t out of luck as well, right? Right?

It has plenty to do with rape victims. You want to give rapists the children of their victims.

Any "natural parent" would be an opposite sex partner, thus we wouldn't need to have this discussion if homosexuals could fill the role of "natural parents".

Any natural parent would be any responsible partner.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you claim on one hand that gender is unimportant, then on the other hand say that it's important to you as a homosexual.

I insist that it"s not important for raising children. Because, I repeat, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise their children. Or so I thought I understood.

Please describe the activities that you use your genitals for in raising children.

If gender is truly a non-issue then it shouldn't matter whether you partner with males or females, so why not partner with an opposite sex partner for child rearing purposes??

Because, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise their children.

Bottom line is that there are fundamental differences between male and female, and it is those differences that provide the best sense of balance and identity to children, that's why the biological parents raising the child in a loving home is the gold standard.

Because you imagine that parents use their genitals to raise their children?

I agree that raising the child in a loving home is the gold standard, but for that very reason, "biological parents" is of lesser importance. And if, for whatever reason, biological parents are unavailable, then whatever provides a "loving home" (be it opposite sex, same sex, or single, or multiple partners) works just as well.

Same sex parenting encourages children to be brought into the world knowing that the child is going to be deprived of one or more of its biological parents.

So what? As long as a loving home is available, it doesn"t matter that much.

False analogy again. Of course there are going to be extreme exceptions to the rule, and no one will hold it against a rape victim. That's just silly.

I agree that you are silly, and that giving rapists custody of their victims" children is the natural fallout of your position.

The fact that you need to redefine marriage and family is proof that homosexuals don't fit. Marriage is a man and a woman, a family is a father, mother, and their children. Any deviation from that fact means that something went wrong with the natural order and structure of the family.

Please. Your "natural order" is far from being natural or even historically dominant. It"s a recent fantasy. The extended family alone has had a far longer history in humanity than the nuclear family ever had, and it"s still the norm in a sizable portion of the world.

Your bigoted assertion is proof that you are a bigot, not that homosexuals don"t fit. Marriage is also a man and a man or a woman and a woman; a family is any set of partners or individuals that provide a loving home for their children.

As has already been mentioned, marriage has been "redefined" plenty already, and "family" doesn"t even currently meet your definition. "Nuclear family" =/= Family.

And if "deviations from the fact" truly mean that "something went wrong", then by your own logic Jesus's family structure was horrid.

Those deviations should be minimized as much as possible, but homosexuality being included in the family structure actually encourages people to bring children into the world knowing full well that they will be deprived of one of their parents. That's just wrong any way you slice it.

So do sperm banks.

I asked a pertinent question to you in the other thread, so I"ll post it again:

One of the things being worked on in biology is transforming male cells into eggs, and female cells into sperm, so that it would technically be possible for a child to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers.

Would that shut you up?
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:49:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Part 2:

At 8/10/2013 10:36:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Housing serves a valid function. Homosexual attempts at parenting and homosexuality in general, provide no valid function to society and is actually a detriment.

Conveniently ignoring that you have no actual argument that homosexual parenting is detrimental, given studies that prove the opposite that you have only objected to on the basis of a comedian"s opinion on the matter. Sadly, neither you nor he are particularly funny. Speaking of "no valid function to society"!

But yeah, this claim of yours is nothing more than a bald assertion, made without evidence and dismissed without evidence.

You asked this in the other thread. What are you asking me to prove?? That boys are male and girls are female?? That there is a difference between the two genders?? I'm not really clear here.

You"re being asked to prove that male and female parents use their genitals to raise their children, and to describe how they do so.

Single parent homes are another one of the exceptions that happens in the real world. The evidence shows that kids fare better in homes with both a mother and father, so single parent homes, like adoptive and other necessary arrangements, should be minimized for the betterment of children. I'm sure you'll turn that into me saying that single parents or adoptive parents aren't good parents, though that isn't what I mean. But the fact is that people should be encouraged to have children inside the bonds of marriage, and raise the kids that they have in a loving home, that's where they do best.

Meanwhile, in the real world, marriage and heterosexuality do fvck-all to guarantee a loving home, so your whole attempt at appearing concerned falls flat. Nice try. And there"s no reason that it can"t be two men or two women who provide that loving home.

Like it or not, there is a difference between men and women, thus there are differences between mothers and fathers. Real men and real women are different and each provides the child with a different set of qualities, together as a couple they provide the child with a good balance, and good role models for future relationships, that same sex partners do not provide.

You forgot to add the (TM) to Real men (TM) and Real women (TM). You also still forgot to specify what this difference is, because we all suspect that you just buy into cultural gender stereotypes on the issue and thus fail at biology, which is where you are pretending your argument lies.

By being homosexuals, they have a distorted, demented view of gender from the outset. No homosexual male can provide a good role model to show a boy how to become a man, since he is not a real man himself. Same goes for lesbians trying to turn a young girl into a lady. If those kids actually turn into a real man or a lady, then they got that positive influence somewhere other than in the home.

Your un-evidenced bigotry is noted.

Don't poke me with that bigot pole when you yourself have it crammed so far up your own a$$ that you'd need a tow truck to get it out. You don't even respect people's individuality and freedom enough to allow them the luxury of differing with your political stance without referring to them as intolerant bigots or homophobes. That's as bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and childish as an individual can get, so you have no room to call anyone else a bigot.

No, it isn"t. You know what would actually be intolerant, hateful, and bigoted? Denying people rights. Calling you a bigot is just the price of you spewing hate.

Recognizing a$$holery does not equal being an a$$hole. You are a bigot regardless of whether you are poked with a pole or not. And how weird it always gets into sexual language with you guys.

When your "differing political stance" is that homosexual people don"t have the capacity or the right to raise a family of their own, that is bigoted and homophobic. I really don"t get you on this, medic. Why do you avoid the homophobic label when you"re proudly in favour of discriminating against same-sex relationships? What do you even think "homophobic" means?

The important (and painfully obvious) difference is that we"re not forbidding you to marry the one you love or to raise children with her. I realize that being called a bigot for your bigoted words is likely the worst "oppression" you"ve ever felt, but please at least make a token attempt to understand the difference.

You differ in your political stance because you are an intolerant bigot and a homophobe. You don"t get to make bigoted and homophobic statements and then not have that bigotry and homophobia called out. I assure you, you are a hateful, intolerant, and bigoted person, and you are rather childish as well, and there"s plenty of room to point out your hateful bigotry when you insist on being a intolerant bigot. You bigot.

Among other things, be a father. Show his kids how to be a man, and how to be a husband and father. That's not something a woman can do.

A male father is necessary to teach males how to be a father because this can only be done by male fathers. Well, I"m convinced. Stellar argumentation based heavily in facts and evidence. You should submit your findings to the nearest anthropological, biological, psychological, and sociological journals you can, medic. (/sarcasm)

But seriously, this is weak sauce. You got to go into the details here. (That vague "among other things" doesn"t help either). How does one show how to be a man? What are the important things to learn? How to drive a stick shift, how to play football, that kind of thing? I suspect you"re so vague with your all-important gender parenting roles because you know how silly they sound without all the unquestioned privilege they get in your normal circles. And anyway, if gender differences are really as natural as you say they are, then why do they have to be socially enforced with such rigor?

Robert Oscar Lopez, whom you cite, says that his lesbian mother did pretty much exactly as your quote described. So chalk up another source that completely undermines your point.

And wait, if the only importance of the father role is to teach boys how to be fathers and husbands, does that mean that girls don"t need fathers after all? Way to inadvertently vouch for male gay marriages, medic!

Seriously medic, your worldview is incoherent. That"s what happens when you try to apply logic and evidence to religious-based dogma and prejudices. Those things do not play well with each other, medic. Just a good rule of thumb for future reference.

Among other things, the mother can show her kids how to be a mother, and how a man and woman interact together, combining qualities to make the family stronger. That's not something a man can do.

Crap logic for the same reasons I outlined above.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 11:07:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to add something to my Part 2, exactly what does this mean to be a father or a mother? How does being a father differ from being a mother? If all you can think of is "you can teach your child to be a father/mother", then clearly your position is entirely circular.

You say "among other things". What are these "other things"? Be specific and cite your sources.

Anyhow, Part 3:

At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
See, you keep making the same stupid argument that Corolla makes fun of you guys for.

No, see, that"s you. You"re the one saying that terrible parents should get to raise their kids, but the well-adjusted gay men can"t. We have to rebut that. Corolla"s a lackwit because he doesn"t realize these arguments aren"t made in a void. Well, he"s a lackwit for a lot of reasons, but that"s one of them.

The hetero in your scenario is always someone that no one would want to have children, while the homo is always portrayed as the loving, caring, trustworthy type.

YOUR scenarios assume a household with a man and a woman is better a priori. Your assumptions are being challenged. Do you agree that abusers, deadbeats, and rapists should not have access to their children? Then, just like us, you want to deprive a child of their biological parent. How horrible a hypocrite you are.

What prevents a homosexual from being loving, caring, and trustworthy? Besides your hateful intolerance and bigotry, I mean.

Make all things equal in your scenario, same job, same house, same good character, etc., and it boils down to man/woman as mother and father vs. man/man as father(maybe) and his sexual partner, same for lesbians.

So?

Two males or two females do not present the natural family structure

Well, sure, but neither do a man and a woman. The best evidence indicates that the most natural family structure for the overwhelming majority of human history was, and is, an extended family structure. Two people can"t provide that, regardless of what their genders are. I don"t see the problem, because breaking from an extended family structure hasn"t caused society to come crashing down on our heads.

or provide both a mother and father role model for the child, without having to turn to people outside the home. If you have to turn to people outside the home for role models then there is something wrong inside the home.

You have failed to explain how male and female parents use their genitals to raise children.

This is stupid. Why do you hate science?? Show me the science that says that taking a child away from one of it's biological parents, and replacing that parent with an unrelated opposite sex individual who has deficient views on gender, has no ill effects on the child, and I'll show you junk science, and biased information.

a) Loaded language. Using a wording reminiscent of kidnapping to refer to adoption. Likening homosexual people raising a child to forcible substitution of someone"s parent.

b) Assumes facts not in evidence " that homosexuals have "deficient views on gender", and that they matter. Tsk, tsk.

You"re just lying. Because you"re a bigot.

Decades of research show that kids are negatively affected by the absence of a mother figure, and the same goes with the father figure.

Citation badly needed. And don't bother with the massively discredited Regnerus study, lest you want to be laughed out of this thread. Otherwise, your claim is nonsense. You have no idea what science there is, or what it shows, and you don"t care, either.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 11:49:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:14:14 AM, JonMilne wrote:
Part 1:

At 8/10/2013 10:36:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
No, I do not see the gender of parents as irrelevant to kids, just like you don't see the gender of your sexual partner as irrelevant to you.

Non-sequitur. There are two fundamental disconnects in this argument.
a) Sexual preferences are in no way analogous to parenting capacity.
b) Preferring a certain gender combination in a sexual relationship does not invalidade other people choosing other combinations.

IOW, gender is totally irrelevant except where you need it to be relevant. Gotcha.

As an heterosexual myself, gender is important to ME when choosing MY sexual partners, but that does not affect the choices of other people.

Gender is important to ALL people, but you guys use it when you need it and try to disregard it when it gets in your way. Either gender is an important natural part of the human experience, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways and remain logically consistent.

If you deny that there are non-physical qualities that define what a man or a woman is, then you are forced to admit for consistency's sake, that a homosexual's attraction to the same sex is purely physical and is contingent on him having a penis, and her having a vagina. A relationship based purely and solely on the sexual organs of one's partner is called lust, because a man can't be attracted to someone who doesn't have a penis, right??

If you admit that there are non-physical qualities that define what a man or woman is, then you have to admit that men and women provide something different for the child, that the other sex can't provide. Those non-physical qualities are what make them a "man" or a "woman". They are an important part of any relationship that the person is going to be involved in. If you take this route, then you have to admit that same sex couples intentionally deprive a child of the missing ingredient, while insisting that their own relationship must have that missing ingredient, which is selfish and childish and demonstrates that they are putting their own needs ahead of the best interest of the child.

That, in a nutshell, are the choices, so which choice are you arguing for??

Likewise, if I choose to partner with a woman to raise a child, that does not mean I should or would preclude two men (or two women, or a single parent, or any other possibility) to do the same.

You obviously don't believe that a child has any rights at all to be raised by both a mother and a father figure. Your position amounts to making children a commodity, provided to anyone who wants to play house, rather than seeing adoption as a means to find a family for a child. Instead, you see it as a means to provide a commodity for those who have chosen a relationship that can't provide that commodity for themselves.

You are still refusing to specify still how genitalia are relevant to parenting. How do parents use their genitals to raise children?

Your phrasing of the question is a little silly, but I already addressed the applicability and relevance of the gender issue above.

This has nothing at all to do with rape victims. I do not see it as discriminatory or bigoted, to say that children deserve a mother and father more than homosexuals deserve something that they cannot create for themselves.

Because homosexuals are sterile?

Together they are sterile. They have to resort to <GASP> natural hetero use of their sexual organs or reproductive system. They have to go outside the monogamy of a marital relationship in order to create a child, and only one of them can actually be related to the child, thus a "parent". That also means that the child is going to be deprived of its other "parent", or even a reasonable facsimile, which a hetero step-parent or hetero adoptive family can provide. That's where the choice that I asked you to make earlier comes in to play. How are you going to argue it from here??

I guess infertile heterosexual couples are sh!t out of luck as well, right? Right?

All I can give here is my opinion. Personally, I think that so long as there are children who need adoptive homes, ART should only be allowed if the prospective couple are going to be the child's biological parents. If they would otherwise have to use donor sperm, eggs, or a surrogate then they should only be able to use that technology if there are no adoptable children that are suitable fits for that family. So in the way that you phrase the question, yes, infertile hetero couples would be SOL so long as there are children that are in need of adoptive homes, which would be a good fit for that prospective family. Once the adoption/foster situation is made more manageable, then we can revisit the issue and my view would likely change based on the situation. Yes it may suck for some people, but I believe that we've put ourselves and kids in a particularly bad situation, and it's going to require some drastic actions to fix the problem. That means that not everyone can have everything exactly as they want it. I realize that that statement is a shock to the system of those on the left but it's just the most reasonable way I can see of dealing with the both problems at the same time.

It has plenty to do with rape victims. You want to give rapists the children of their victims.

Please quote where I said, or even implied that, or else stop using that strawman. That's an asinine statement and I never said any such thing, nor would I even consider giving a child to a rapist as a possible option.

Any "natural parent" would be an opposite sex partner, thus we wouldn't need to have this discussion if homosexuals could fill the role of "natural parents".

Any natural parent would be any responsible partner.

If two men or two women could naturally be the parents of a child then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you claim on one hand that gender is unimportant, then on the other hand say that it's important to you as a homosexual.

I insist that it"s not important for raising children. Because, I repeat, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise their children. Or so I thought I understood.

This stupid argument...again...lol. This is what I meant in the other thread about repeating things to you 12 times.

No, parents don't physically use their genitals to raise children. They do however, use the humanity and skills that come as part of that package deal.

Please describe the activities that you use your genitals for in raising children.

<YAWN>

If gender is truly a non-issue then it shouldn't matter whether you partner with males or females, so why not partner with an opposite sex partner for child rearing purposes??

Because, by and large, parents do not use their genitals to raise their children.

lalalala

Bottom line is that there are fundamental differences between male and female, and it is those differences that provide the best sense of balance and identity to children, that's why the biological parents raising the child in a loving home is the gold standard.

Because you imagine that parents use their genitals to raise their children?

How many repetitions is that now??

I have to admit that if you're a troll, which I've seen as a possibility since our first interaction, you are one of the best that I've encountered, although you do make it tempting at times to just ignore you altogether. I think that would be the only aspect you'd need to improve on, with your trolling skills, aside from the ridiculous arguments of course. That's not really your fault though, it's just the nature of the beast that you're working with.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 12:35:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 4:36:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm shocked!! You mean a woman really can raise her own biological child without it becoming a bat-sh!t crazy axe murderer?? Who'da thunk that could happen??

And more to the point raise it with another woman with no clear detriment and the child actually benefiting. But hey, let's not get too deep into that...

Seriously though, no one says that gay people don't love their kids, especially when they are the biological parents. No one says that those parents can't raise a child that can be ok. Even the most poor, welfare dependent single parents do have success stories.

And yet we must deny them the right because"? And "no one" says it, except for bigots like you.

The argument is that kids, overall, who are raised without one or more of their biological parents, are at higher risk for, and show deficiencies in certain areas, over those who are raised with both a mother and a father figure. There are decades of research showing this, and current studies continue to show the same findings.

As per the above, this is un-evidenced nonsense. If you HAD the research you would have shown it by now.

In response to your example, Zach, I suggest you look at Robert Oscar Lopez. He's a bisexual, raised by his lesbian mother who he loves very much, but he says that kids need a mother and father.

He's passionate, I'll give you that much, but very confused.

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com...

A couple of Zach's statements caught my attention...

"My sister and I have the same anonymous father, so we're full siblings, which is really cool".

Why is it important that his sister is his "full sister", if biological relation is unimportant??

We"re certain that, if he was never told about the relation, he wouldn"t give a sh!t.

Don't you see the absurdity of a 19 year old having to mention his "anonymous donor father"?? Don't you notice that he HAS to, as a protective mechanism, extoll the virtues of his two mommies, in order to hide the fact that there was no normal family structure?? No child should have to talk about his anonymous donor father.

So you"re also a bigot against sperm banks? So medic now adds "deadbeat dads" and "sperm banks" to his list to why gay people should not be allowed to be married and adopt children.

This is paraphrased but he talked about how they did things like a normal family, going to church etc. His lesbian parents took their children to church at the Unitarian universalist church...That would be a hilarious statement if it weren't actually happening to kids.

Aww isn"t that precious. Medic's showing his true fundie colors. Your religious bigotry is noted.

It's like, how many self-contradictory absurdities can you pack into one sentence?? It's actually sad that kids are being forced to accept such obvious lies, and are forced to substitute that reality for truth because it's their only option.

What "obvious lies" are you referring to?

I do admire their coping skills, and their ability to compensate for deficiencies, but it's sad that that had to be such a big part of their childhood when it didn't need to be.

And as ever, you don't care about what the children actually think. They have a loving home.

No, it isn't ridiculous. You're argument is the one that's ridiculous, we're just following nature. Man and woman make babies, thus man and woman get married and become father and mother. That's not JUST tradition, it's the only way nature works, and it's what is best for kids.

Even deadbeats, abusers, and rapists?

That isn"t true today in a good portion of the world. It hasn"t been true for most of humanity"s history. Your "only way nature works" flies in the face of evidence, because it's obviously not. What"s best for kids is a loving home, whoever happens to provide that.

Again, your definitions of marriage and nature and mother and father deserve TMs for the way you use that, because they clearly aren't shared by a significant amount of people in the world.

No society that allowed so called gay marriage has lasted, while marriage between man and woman has always been a constant.

Except for the ones that have recently allowed gay marriage that are currently existing, and doing just fine.

(Weren"t you pretending that you weren"t a bigot?)

A man or woman marrying their same sex friend with benefits IS redefining marriage.

Un-evidenced nonsense, yet again.

And we show how each of those kinds of families are not as well suited to raise children as a home with a mother and father. We show how the kids suffer the effects of the irresponsibility of the adults who bring kids into the world intentionally, knowing that those kids are going to be at a disadvantage. You advocate for doing that even more often than we do now. that's ludicrous.

No, you don"t. You just say they are. You just spout stupidity and bigotry.

Two things that are actually missing in your screed:

Who is "we", and where is evidence of anything that "we" have shown?

A lot of things put kids in a disadvantage, that"s no argument for taking away the rights of same-sex parents unless you want to do the same with poor, minority, disabled, abusive and proudly ignorant parents.

You have no clue how to raise a child. You have no clue what a marriage is. You don't have an ounce of morality or common sense, and have no clue what it means to be a real man or real woman.

...or a Scotsman, http://en.wikipedia.org...

This quote, and everything else you've posted, is pure projection. You have no clue that marriage is secular and it is definition is more arbitrary and fluid than your dogmatic, religious mind allows you to comprehend. You have no clue how to raise a child because you can"t fathom the possibility of deviating from "natural" parenting roles and can"t bring yourself to imagine any family working aside from a nuclear family. You don"t know what it means to be a man or a woman because you simply lack nuance. You believe that in very rigid gender roles, you believe in very simplistic definitions of what "man" and "woman" mean, you ignore any possibility for grey areas that are fvcking known to exist (even just in terms of biology!) and take it for granted that all the cultural baggage associated with male and female roles are natural and therefore immutable and indisputable.

You are piling bullsh!t upon bullsh!t. You are using the most facile of interpretations of scientific evidence to excuse your opposition to gay people on every possible front. You are bringing creationist tactics to homophobia, and using the traditional homophobe tactic of denying that you hate gays while still disingenuously throwing every half-assed argument you can against the wall until you find one that sticks.

You have no tools with which to even contend in a discussion on these issues. The only thing you have to fight with is your hatred of anyone who doesn't want to give you special rights because of your choice to participate in an unnatural sexual lifestyle that has no value at all to society.

Yeah, we are the ones who are hateful. Because equal rights is "special rights". Being gay is an "unnatural sexual lifestyle". And, of course, all sexual attractions are gauged upon whether they have a value to society! You"re really making it clear how much of a Not-Bigot you are, medic.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 1:19:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:14:14 AM, JonMilne wrote:

I agree that raising the child in a loving home is the gold standard, but for that very reason, "biological parents" is of lesser importance. And if, for whatever reason, biological parents are unavailable, then whatever provides a "loving home" (be it opposite sex, same sex, or single, or multiple partners) works just as well.

No, any kind of "loving" home is not the gold standard. Decades of research shows clearly that children are at high risk for multiple problems when raised in a home that doesn't include both their biological mother and father, in a marital relationship. That is the gold standard that we should strive for because it causes the least amount of preventable problems for kids, and provides the least amount of societal intervention to care for those kids. Anything that encourages people to deviate from that gold standard, intentionally, puts kids at risk and therefore is detrimental to society in a way that is preventable, or at least can be made more manageable by simply using a little common sense.

Same sex parenting encourages children to be brought into the world knowing that the child is going to be deprived of one or more of its biological parents.

So what? As long as a loving home is available, it doesn"t matter that much.

"That much"?? Ok, maybe you believe that it wouldn't matter "that much" for you personally, but by logical extension you're forcing that position onto kids. You're putting them in a position that removes that option for them, and takes away any right they have to be raised in a normal family.

You complain about religious people trying to force their views on people, but religion is a belief. We can't force people to believe something. You're doing something even worse than that. You're forcing those children to live that lifestyle, disregarding nature, and disregarding the benefits that the mother and father roles provide for them. That is physical manipulation of defenseless people, children, and it is akin to slavery since you have removed any rights they may have had.

False analogy again. Of course there are going to be extreme exceptions to the rule, and no one will hold it against a rape victim. That's just silly.

I agree that you are silly, and that giving rapists custody of their victims" children is the natural fallout of your position.

No it isn't, that's another asinine statement, and is not an argument that I've ever seen a single person make. It's YOUR strawman, not a legitimate point made by my position.

The fact that you need to redefine marriage and family is proof that homosexuals don't fit. Marriage is a man and a woman, a family is a father, mother, and their children. Any deviation from that fact means that something went wrong with the natural order and structure of the family.

Please. Your "natural order" is far from being natural or even historically dominant. It"s a recent fantasy. The extended family alone has had a far longer history in humanity than the nuclear family ever had, and it"s still the norm in a sizable portion of the world.

At no point in history has a mother, father, and their children not been the basic building block, the "family". If by extended family you mean grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., yes obviously there are going to be extended families. It's called ancestry, but even the extended family started out with the mother, father, and child.

Your bigoted assertion is proof that you are a bigot, not that homosexuals don"t fit. Marriage is also a man and a man or a woman and a woman; a family is any set of partners or individuals that provide a loving home for their children.

blahblah...Kids can only be born through a mother and father which means that I'm a bigot. I got it, troll on.

As has already been mentioned, marriage has been "redefined" plenty already, and "family" doesn"t even currently meet your definition. "Nuclear family" =/= Family.

Already has been redefined=/= Should have been redefined
Already has been redefined=/= Redefinition was logical
Already has been redefined=/= Redefinition provides anything valuable to society

And if "deviations from the fact" truly mean that "something went wrong", then by your own logic Jesus's family structure was horrid.

lol...I think being a deity eliminated any potential negatives or risk factors that are applicable to humans.

Those deviations should be minimized as much as possible, but homosexuality being included in the family structure actually encourages people to bring children into the world knowing full well that they will be deprived of one of their parents. That's just wrong any way you slice it.

So do sperm banks.

Agreed

I asked a pertinent question to you in the other thread, so I"ll post it again:

One of the things being worked on in biology is transforming male cells into eggs, and female cells into sperm, so that it would technically be possible for a child to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers.

Would that shut you up?

Yes, I'm well aware that man is hell-bent on destroying himself, with radical progressives at the helm. I pray to God that He intercede and not allow that technology to become usable.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:12:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Medic, if you were arguing in good faith I would say your problem is that you ascribe too much importance to biological sex. You seem to think that somehow a couple being both biologically male and biologically female is somehow necessary for good parenting. You have yet to prove that. You have yet to explain why the genitalia of the parents in any way affects the quality of parenting.

If you stand by all you have said then you must then answer the following questions:

1) Are the gender roles you put forth actually necessary? Is it truly neglectful to not have a masculine male and a feminine female raising a child? If so then why do you take such umbrage when people follow out this logic and ask about single-parent households? If you want to convince use that a child NEEDS to be raised by a male and a female biological parent then you need to pony up the proof.

2) Why are these roles sex specific? If a child actually NEEDS Manly role model and a womanly role model (which you have not proven yet BTW) then why can a man not be "Feminine" and a woman be "masculine"? Sex is not the same thing as Gender, Gender is a social identity and Sex is a biological distinction. If a child is raised by two male partners why can"t one of them teach the child to be "Feminine"?

3) Why do you fetishize biological parents? You seem to believe that being the biological father or mother creates some sort of magical invisible bond between parent and child. However this does not hold up. There are abusive and/or neglectful biological parents and wonderful adoptive parents in the world. You repeatedly denigrate adoptive parents, Heterosexual or Homosexual, with your rhetoric and then seem surprised when people take you to task for it. Speaking of which:

4) Why are you blind to your own implications? You got pissed off when someone pointed out that your own philosophy would lead to women marrying their rape victims if they were pregnant. That"s the ugly repercussion of putting so much stock in biological parenting. You yourself dismissively called any caretaker besides the Biological parents a "Nanny". By the logic you put forth if a woman is raped and carries the child to term then the rapist is magically the ideal parent for the child because he"s the biological father.

5) Why do you put so much stock in "The natural order"? The nuclear family is a modern invention, throughout human history the majority of marriages were not based off a love and were done to create an extended family and cement familial alliances. Also there are Homosexual relationships in "The natural order", there are gay penguin couples and whiptail lizards who are all female. How do you arrive at a "natural order" that is so patently unnatural and ahistorical? This is a question you have repeatedly refused to answer medic which is very telling.

These are questions you must answer medic if you are arguing in good faith. But you aren"t. We still remember how you arrived on this topic, medic, when you came onto it with an astoundingly hate-fuelled rant against a transsexual person with threats to break their legs based on your mindset of religious presupposition and bullcrap. We remember when you got on this gay marriage kick and how you tried to intentionally misrepresent an equality advocate. We remember how you repeatedly cast the gays as some sort of child-kidnapping boogieman to intentionally obscure legitimate adoption. We remember you intentionally misrepresented the happenings of a court case to make it seem like gays were legally stealing children. You have born false witness here many many times medic, you have no credibility and there is no reason to see you as anything but a hateful religiously motivated bigot. You are a liar medic, and your most egregious lie is to claim you are anything but a homophobic bigot.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 2:12:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 2:12:08 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Medic, if you were arguing in good faith I would say your problem is that you ascribe too much importance to biological sex. You seem to think that somehow a couple being both biologically male and biologically female is somehow necessary for good parenting. You have yet to prove that. You have yet to explain why the genitalia of the parents in any way affects the quality of parenting.

If you stand by all you have said then you must then answer the following questions:

1) Are the gender roles you put forth actually necessary? Is it truly neglectful to not have a masculine male and a feminine female raising a child? If so then why do you take such umbrage when people follow out this logic and ask about single-parent households? If you want to convince use that a child NEEDS to be raised by a male and a female biological parent then you need to pony up the proof.

2) Why are these roles sex specific? If a child actually NEEDS Manly role model and a womanly role model (which you have not proven yet BTW) then why can a man not be "Feminine" and a woman be "masculine"? Sex is not the same thing as Gender, Gender is a social identity and Sex is a biological distinction. If a child is raised by two male partners why can"t one of them teach the child to be "Feminine"?

3) Why do you fetishize biological parents? You seem to believe that being the biological father or mother creates some sort of magical invisible bond between parent and child. However this does not hold up. There are abusive and/or neglectful biological parents and wonderful adoptive parents in the world. You repeatedly denigrate adoptive parents, Heterosexual or Homosexual, with your rhetoric and then seem surprised when people take you to task for it. Speaking of which:

4) Why are you blind to your own implications? You got pissed off when I pointed out that your own philosophy would lead to women marrying their rape victims if they were pregnant. That"s the ugly repercussion of putting so much stock in biological parenting. You yourself dismissively called any caretaker besides the Biological parents a "Nanny". By the logic you put forth if a woman is raped and carries the child to term then the rapist is magically the ideal parent for the child because he"s the biological father.

5) Why do you put so much stock in "The natural order"? The nuclear family is a modern invention, throughout human history the majority of marriages were not based off a love and were done to create an extended family and cement familial alliances. Also there are Homosexual relationships in "The natural order", there are gay penguin couples and whiptail lizards who are all female. How do you arrive at a "natural order" that is so patently unnatural and ahistorical? This is a question you have repeatedly refused to answer medic which is very telling.

These are questions you must answer medic if you are arguing in good faith. But you aren"t. We still remember how you arrived on this topic, medic, when you came onto it with an astoundingly hate-fuelled rant against a transsexual person with threats to break their legs based on your mindset of religious presupposition and bullcrap. We remember when you got on this gay marriage kick and how you tried to intentionally misrepresent an equality advocate. We remember how you repeatedly cast the gays as some sort of child-kidnapping boogieman to intentionally obscure legitimate adoption. We remember you intentionally misrepresented the happenings of a court case to make it seem like gays were legally stealing children. You have born false witness here many many times medic, you have no credibility and there is no reason to see you as anything but a hateful religiously motivated bigot. You are a liar medic, and your most egregious lie is to claim you are anything but a homophobic bigot.

Fixed