On gay marriage...

reply to post by rogerstigers

Thank you! That clears things up!

• www.livescience.com...
  
  A study done by Judith Stacey, et. al. Stacey is Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at NYU, with a primary focus on non-traditional families. The following quote is somewhat telling:
  

  
  Stacey says she doesn't think kids growing up in lesbian households get teased more than other kids; it's just that when they do get teased, the target is the non-traditional household, rather than some other aspect of their life or identity.

  
  She 'doesn't think'? Does she not 'know' after the study? That alone makes me a bit suspicious of her objectivity.
  
  

  
  "It's not that men don't matter; it's that men can be just as good as women at parenting," said Karen L. Fingerman of the Child Development & Family Studies at Purdue University, who was not involved in the current study.

  
  Spin, spin, spin... not involved in the study, but thinks that men can be as good a parent as a woman... obviously implying that the female role is the yardstick she uses to judge parenting skills. This totally ignores the possibility that each gender contributes differently to the development process.
  
  
• www.time.com...
  
• www.foxnews.com...
  
  These are from the same study, this one performed by Dr. Nanette Gartrell. Dr. Gartrell is married to Diane Mosbacher, a lesbian activist. Conflict of interest anyone?
  
  

  
  In fact, lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father.

  
  The mothers said? Objectivity, where art thou?

Both of these studies relied heavily on subjective data (questionaires) and neither has considered the children after they become adults. Both are exclusively focused on teenage years.

As I said before, these findings fly in the face of centuries of accepted wisdon. It will take more than a couple activist studies with questionable objectivity to convince me that there is no need for both genders in rearing children.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And with the future of children in the balance, I am not inclined to change my opinions easily, sorry.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
"centuries of accepted wisdom"

Really?

I find that kind of "weak generic".

Originally posted by TheRedneck
these findings fly in the face of centuries of accepted wisdom.

...i understand that your version of "accepted wisdom" carries more weight than someone else's version when it comes to you and your family... i'm that way too...

...the problem is people who want to legislate their version as the only right way... we all should have the right to choose which conventional / traditional or modern ways we incorporate into our family...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It will take more than a couple activist studies with questionable objectivity to convince me that there is no need for both genders in rearing children.

...but those studies werent trying to convince you to change your style of parenting... they're trying to remove some of the disinfo and stigma that a lot of society has attached to same-sex parents...

...besides, there are tons of single parents who have raised a child of the opposite gender and the child turned out to be a wonderful adult... there are also tons of opposite-gender parents that live in the same home and their kids turned out to be horrid...

Gay marriage, the issue around it is relatively new and a concept that has hit the main stream like a ton of bricks. Society bulks at radical change, and that which threatens their sense of what is normal in their eyes. Social change is scary, and people fear what they view as being wrong in their eyes, using any means to justify why it is wrong. Such is the way of people and has been. The question on gay marriage has brought up a number of reason why not too, yet very few reasons as to why. The reason go from the logical to the down right insulting of people who are gay. They equate them with the most ridiculous of reasoning, stating that if such was allowed, then other things would have to be equally allowed under the law, failing to look at what laws are on the books and have been already tried in the courts. And when this has gone before any court, and the court rules that gay people have the fundamental right to marry in the US, most tend to either slander the judge or make supposition as to why such has occurred, instead of reading the opinion of the judge. The judges make very sound decision, with no bias towards one group of the other, weight each case on its own merits and the evidence that the other side brings to the arguments. Many of the arguments on the side against marriage, either crosses into trying to combine religion with the role of government or are purely unfounded as there has really never been any definitive study by the professionals about most of the topics that are brought up, or they are biased with a religious point of view, making such irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The law has to be blind and all studies on such must equally be blind for it to be valid.
The argument can be boiled down to a matter of choice, and the right of one group to choose to marry that which would be considered outside of what would be normal in the eyes of society. Make no mistake, as that gay marriage is something that would be considered outside of the norm in itself. The only real way to end this entire argument is one of 2 ways. Either allow 2 people of the same sex to marry and enjoy the same legal aspects as their counter parts that are of opposite sex do, or remove all legal aspects from marriage in itself where there are no benefits or rights for people to be married.

reply to post by Annee

In any experiment, there is a correct process to use. One thing is tried at a time, so if it doesn't work as expected it can then be returned to normal and something else tried. That is how humanity advances knowledge. To do otherwise is to invite disaster that cannot be corrected.

What we are discussing when it comes to the marriage argument does not contain the seeds of a social disaster. If two people choose to partake in a social experiment, the only ones at risk are themselves. However, should we as a society decide to take the additional large step of allowing free-for-all adoption simultaneously, one that involves the children of a generation, the stakes become much higher. There is a possibility that, if wrong, we could damage an entire generation of our society. And by changing multiple things simultaneously,we risk being unable to return the genie to the bottle, so to speak.

We have the ability at this time to monitor the results of present gay adoptions through at least early adulthood, when any problems should become apparent. I simply suggest that this is the best course of action, not getting all giddy because an activist wrote their biased findings on a University letterhead.

When I say 'centuries of accepted wisdom', I am referring to the fact that society has advanced just fine without all the social engineering that seems to be taking place at an alarming rate. Without all these social programs we as a species managed to increase our numbers to 4 (or is it 5?) billion, spread ourselves across the globe, become the top link in the food chain, develop machinery to make our lives more comfortable, improve our lifespan with medical science, speak to one another across the globe in real time, travel halfway across the planet in a matter of hours, send men and machinery to other cosmic bodies, explore the depths of the oceans, split the atom for power, and develop computer systems that can execute billions of instructions per second, yet can be found in almost every home in the Western world. I think we did pretty good for ourselves.

So why the rush to change everything all at once? Leveling the legal field for gay relationships is one thing, but then we add onto it the adoption issue, and make sure our contempt for the ways of life of our forefathers is clear for all to see?

You know, I am really at a loss to understand the tactics behind the gay marriage movement. I have clearly expressed concern for the cause, as well as a willingness to work toward a solution. Yet, when there is support for my suggestion on the marriage issue, the adoption issue is brought up and used to apparently try and make me appear homophobic. If that is the focus of the movement, to define anyone who is not either homosexual or who does not agree completely with anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who is homosexual, as homophobic, you might as well label me as a 'homophobe' right now. I will not bow to whatever someone says based solely on their sexual preference. And that will go for the majority across the country.

It's almost like a spoiled kid in a candy store. They scream and cry for a Hershey's Bar, so you buy them one as one won't hurt. But before they even get into eating it, they start screaming and crying for a Snickers... then for a Almond Joy.... then for licorice... and should you draw the line and say "not until you've finished that one" they throw a bigger fit.

I don't play that way. When my kids tried similar things, I took away what I had already given them and replaced it with a spanking. They lost everything, their butt hurt, and they soon realized to be happy with what they had before demanding more.

What's next? What issue am I hit with after I 'give in' on the abortion issue? Churches must be shut down if they don't have gay members? Maybe a gay deacon? Or maybe we'll require that gays be given tax breaks for being gay, or employers be forced to hire gays before considering straights? I know it will be something more outrageous, because that's the way it always works.

Good job demoting your cause...

TheRedneck

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...i understand that your version of "accepted wisdom" carries more weight than someone else's version when it comes to you and your family... i'm that way too...

See my reply to Annee above.

...the problem is people who want to legislate their version as the only right way... we all should have the right to choose which conventional / traditional or modern ways we incorporate into our family...

I would be the last to argue with that statement, and I don't believe i have said anything that could be taken otherwise.

My only concern at this point is over the adoption issue, an issue which I did not enter this thread to debate because I don't believe all the applicable data has been sufficiently objectively studied yet.

...but those studies werent trying to convince you to change your style of parenting... they're trying to remove some of the disinfo and stigma that a lot of society has attached to same-sex parents...

One does not remove disinfo with disinfo... it would be akin to trying to clean your car with mud.

Show me an unbiased, objective study that extends at least until age 25 (preferably 30) that can be quantified as to social status, regional influences, parenting styles, and any other contributing conditions that could affect the results and we can start to have a conversation. When I am presented with an activist who conducts her own study and then tries to spin the results, sorry, that is not something worthy of even bringing up.

...besides, there are tons of single parents who have raised a child of the opposite gender and the child turned out to be a wonderful adult... there are also tons of opposite-gender parents that live in the same home and their kids turned out to be horrid...

True on both counts. But the reverse is also true.

There are so many influences on children that the effects of one will require serious research and attention to detail, something which is lacking in the examples I was given. That is blatantly obvious. It does not mean such a study cannot bring light to the issue, only that simplistic activist-driven studies spun to promote an agenda are worthless.

TheRedneck

I'm going to say something here that most people will likely consider bigoted, which is that life would probably be a lot less complicated for everybody if homosexuality simply didn't exist. However, the reality is that it does, which means that we have to deal with it; both people who are gay have to, and straights have to as well.

I'm not, contrary to what you might think, intentionally being homophobic here. I am celibate myself, because I consider sex in general (whether gay or straight) to simply be far more trouble than it is worth.

As a result, however, Christians need to suck it up and let gay marriage pass. They might not like it, but the bottom line is that in purely practical terms, homosexuals within stable, legally legitimate, monogamous relationships, are not homosexuals who are engaging in promiscuous sex with multiple partners.

AIDS statistically spreads more easily via anal intercourse than any other sexual act; which means that among individuals who are likely to engage in anal sex, monogamy is extremely important for the wellbeing of society as a whole. Monogamy therefore needs to be encouraged among homosexuals as much as possible, and marriage is a key part of that.

That isn't the only issue. I've known a homosexual man who died of a drug overdose, after a period of several years of extensive drug abuse, and unrestrained sex with large numbers of partners. Homosexual people have not had the sort of legal and social framework that heterosexuals have had, for the reason that traditionally, homosexuality has not been seen as legitimate.

This needs to change. Gay people need rules, to the same extent that heterosexual people do. We need to give them marriage, and we need, in general terms, to assist them in providing themselves with a legal and cultural subtext that allows them to have as full and rich an existence as the heterosexual population.

Originally posted by petrus4
Gay people need rules, to the same extent that heterosexual people do. We need to give them marriage, and we need, in general terms, to assist them in providing themselves with a legal and cultural subtext that allows them to have as full and rich an existence as the heterosexual population.

Love your post.

When a minority is shunned by society - - they don't just disappear - - they create their own "secret" culture on the fringe and/or underground of society.

Gays do have their own fringe culture - which seems outrages to many heteros. But - they really had no choice. To live normal in society - - they had to live a lie. Live as straight. Then sneak off to the "fringes" to have gay sex. In a way the straight population is responsible for the gay culture.

Today - - - in reports/studies I've read - - - the more gays are accepted in society - - - the more they become mainstream. Years ago - - a gay person couldn't even dream of marrying their partner and raising a family.

I feel it is very much the responsibility of Heteros - - to make main stream living for gays acceptable and normal as part of society.

An interesting side note: Gays are losing their sanctuaries. As they become more accepted - - their selected gay areas - - such as North Hollywood - - are also becoming main stream to straights.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
There are so many influences on children that the effects of one will require serious research and attention to detail, something which is lacking in the examples I was given. That is blatantly obvious. It does not mean such a study cannot bring light to the issue, only that simplistic activist-driven studies spun to promote an agenda are worthless.

TheRedneck

That also works in reverse - - which I am sure you will agree with.

All the anti-gay studies/reports - - from - say - religious leaning believers - - - must also stand up to criticism.

I personally do not see in today's world the benefit of the opposite gender parents vs same gender parents.

In today's world - - - I only see devoted parents. It takes a lot to actually "raise" a child. Not just let a child grow up.

I grant you the "Needs of the Child" are #1 priority. I can tell already that my grandson is in need of a strong male figure. We are looking for options. But - no way are we going to bring a man into the mix - - just to have a man in the house. That's an old "song" with negative consequences IMO.

There are a few questions, but boil the argument down to its lowest common point.
Is it right to demand one group of people follow all of the laws, pay their taxes, and be expected to be productive members of society, yet deny them the same rights and privileges as another group?
Do you exclude that group cause they are different, or have a different set of beliefs and make choices that are not what the majority would chose? Or do you include them, to ensure that all are equal. How is this issue different than say the ERA movement, or the civil rights movement of years gone by? You would expect gay people to pay their taxes, to be nice neighbors, to follow the laws, yet would deny them the very same rights as their straight counterparts, that reeks of discrimination all based on sexual orientation. Not too long ago, women were treated as second class citizens, along with other minority groups in the USA. Hispanics, African Americans, those of Asian descent were all treated badly, excluded from the very rights that the majority would enjoy.
People keep mentioning children, yet there has been no real study so far, as to the effects of children being raised in a same sex household, nor has there been a large mass of gay people trying to adopt, it is too far and few between. And yet people use the sexual orientation like it is a disease, protect the children. But the question should be focused on what is good for the child, not if the parents are gay or straight, that should be the focus. Some would argue that if given the choice, the child should go to a poor straight couple rather than a rich gay couple. The balance is against gay people no matter how you slice it.
Up until the early 80’s there were many laws on the books that would allow for the police to invade into the privacy of what went on in the bedroom between 2 consenting adults, and that had to change. As it was treating one group separate and as a second class citizen, rather than all people equal under the eyes of the law.
Not all gay people want to marry, nor do they want to adopt, or serve in the military or do everything that every one else does, then again not all straight people want to marry, or deal with children or serve in the military. The laws should reflect that which is simply what is wanted, equality under the eyes of the law. If you expect gay people to pay taxes, and be members of society, then don’t treat them like second class citizens, where they can enjoy some of the benefits and not all of them, better that they get to enjoy all of them, and have the right to choose, than take away those rights. Or worse deny them.

reply to post by Annee

All the anti-gay studies/reports - - from - say - religious leaning believers - - - must also stand up to criticism.

Absolutely! I pay no attention to them either. I want a clinical study, not a push for activism either direction.

I am glad to see you are cognizant of the need for a male role model in a child's development. Here is a hint: if one is not provided,chances are he'll find one on his own eventually. Pray that the one he finds is a good role model.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

I am glad to see you are cognizant of the need for a male role model in a child's development. Here is a hint: if one is not provided,chances are he'll find one on his own eventually. Pray that the one he finds is a good role model.

I actually agree with what you've said for the most part but let me ask something. What about single mothers? Are we to assume they are incapable of raising a well adjusted child? I've known some wonderful people who's fathers died young, left early etc... I may be misunderstanding your position here.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

All the anti-gay studies/reports - - from - say - religious leaning believers - - - must also stand up to criticism.

Absolutely! I pay no attention to them either. I want a clinical study, not a push for activism either direction.

I am glad to see you are cognizant of the need for a male role model in a child's development. Here is a hint: if one is not provided,chances are he'll find one on his own eventually. Pray that the one he finds is a good role model.

TheRedneck

Not going to leave that to chance. I'm a strong supporter of "Pick your child's friends" - - for as long as you can. If the next door neighbor (and parents) - same age - does not meet reasonable standards - - my kid will not be playing with him. Period! Convenience of a kid next door - - does not take priority over what is best for my kid (grandson).

And I'm not saying all little boys need macho dads. But this one does. Geeze - - what is it with little boys that they think burping is the coolest thing ever. He's only 3 1/2. He was using his baseball bad the other day as a rifle - - shooting at bugs. Don't know where he got that in a house with 3 females.

As far as a clinical study - - more subjects and time is needed. But - just because something is accepted as "best/norm" - - doesn't necessarily mean it is. It is a different world today.

reply to post by Domo1

It is no secret that single mothers have a rougher time in general raising a child than those who are married. Some may say that is because there are two people working together on the task, but I believe it also has to do with the lack of a male role model in the home.

That doesn't mean a single mother cannot do the job, just that it is more difficult. it also does not mean a single father can do a better job. Both male and female role models are needed.

Role models in such cases can come from friends, grandparents, mentors, teachers, coaches... there are a lot of people in this world. Of course, that does bring up the concern of who is playing that part of male (or female) role model, but as Annee says, parents can take steps to try and steer children toward positive role models. It's not as good as having one living in the home, but sometimes you have to make do with what you have.

I will go on to make the following statement: A child should never be removed from their biological parents by force of law except under the most extreme circumstances. That applies whether the biological parent is male, female, gay, straight, single, married, unmarried, in a harem, or is a gray alien shacking up with a reptilian. That is one of my strongest-held beliefs on the subject of children, and yes, I would fight tooth and nail for the parental rights of someone who is gay as vehemently as I would for someone who is not gay. My statements apply to adoption, where the possibility of living with a family member does not exist.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee

As far as a clinical study - - more subjects and time is needed. But - just because something is accepted as "best/norm" - - doesn't necessarily mean it is. It is a different world today.

I agree about needing more time, but I do not agree that it is a different world so far as human nature is concerned.

You can put a frog in a tuxedo, but it is still a frog. You put any Wall Street power broker in a gutter with nothing to his name and no friends and he will become a bum. Give that bum already in the gutter a decent education and the advantages success brings and he might just make a good power broker.

People are people. They have not changed in hundreds of years, only hidden themselves behind a wall of technology and wealth. The same things that made for a healthy happy life 100 years ago still apply today. That's where the 'best/norm' thing comes in. Yes, there may be a better way, but it might also be a worse way. What we have today as the 'best/norm' works, so we should be very careful and selective before simply tossing it out the window and trying something all new.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thank you very much! Yes, there is a reason for the two-gender role in the nuclear family! Not saying that single parent or same-sex can't parent to their heart's content, but the balance of Alpha and Omega won't be there. The child being loved and cared for is the first consideration, but the bible states, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Yin and yang balance.

Revelation 22:13
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
KJV

And in addition, Karl Marx insisted that the State is superior to the nuclear family altogether. In order to install the State as the replacement for the family, they have to disrupt the nuclear family using whatever means possible, if that means encouraging divorce and unusual combinations of family structures. The children have to adjust to all these different patterns, and I believe that the mother/father/child unit is encoded even into our DNA as the cosmic Holy Family.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Again, your post is well thought out, and the answer to your question of why the agenda and the movement, the answer can be found in the ex KGB Yuri Besmenov's discussion of "sleepers" who have been embedded in our society and who use all sorts of issues to destabilize society. An example of this engineering can be seen clearly in the 60's, when hippies demonstrated contempt for the nuclear family in general, and called it "plastic". This was at the same time when bored couples decided to become "swingers" and switch partners for fun. All sorts of things were introduced to society as "free love". Songs were written too, "Love the One You're With".
All of this is for the express purpose of destabilizing a society to prepare it for conquest(takeover). We know that Kruschev foretold the takeover of the US "from within".





He says that many of the Sleepers were actually KGB agents. This was in the 80's too by the way when he said this.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
but the bible states, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Yin and yang balance.

I do not care what the bible says. At all.

This is today 2011 - - - not 2000+ years ago.

Yes - we can take some great philosophies from ancient times - - - but they must apply to the changes in society and the world we live in today.

With the divorce rate somewhere around 50% for traditional family - - and who knows how successful the dynamics are of the parents who choose to stay together. Staying together does not guarantee anything.

In my childhood - I was closer to my father. He was the more spiritual artistic one. My mom was into sports and had been a physical education major. Each child has needs. Not all boys need a man - - and not all girls need a female presence. (unfortunately my father ran off with another woman when I was about 7).

Life/society is no longer blank and white - - in gender roles - - or parenting.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I am glad to see you are cognizant of the need for a male role model in a child's development. Here is a hint: if one is not provided,chances are he'll find one on his own eventually. Pray that the one he finds is a good role model.

I actually agree with what you've said for the most part but let me ask something. What about single mothers? Are we to assume they are incapable of raising a well adjusted child? I've known some wonderful people who's fathers died young, left early etc... I may be misunderstanding your position here.

I do not think he is saying that children of single mothers or fathers cannot be well-adjusted. But here is an interesting report on the lack of male role models in the black family, and I do not necessarily agree with everything said in this report, but I thought it was an interesting point of study that the lack of male role models in single-mother homes were a major factor in the psychological and emotional stressors causing problems for young black teens.
www.communityvoices.org...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
but the bible states, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Yin and yang balance.

I do not care what the bible says. At all.

This is today 2011 - - - not 2000+ years ago.

Yes - we can take some great philosophies from ancient times - - - but they must apply to the changes in society and the world we live in today.

With the divorce rate somewhere around 50% for traditional family - - and who knows how successful the dynamics are of the parents who choose to stay together. Staying together does not guarantee anything.

In my childhood - I was closer to my father. He was the more spiritual artistic one. My mom was into sports and had been a physical education major. Each child has needs. Not all boys need a man - - and not all girls need a female presence. (unfortunately my father ran off with another woman when I was about 7).

Life/society is no longer blank and white - - in gender roles - - or parenting.

I know you don't care Annee. There are lot's of things you evidently care nothing about.
Yes, I agree that a male and female staying together for the children may not be a workable solution. I am remarking on all these things as a social trend. But some things do not change over thousands of years. (like the number of chromosones a fertilized egg will have). So the fact that the bible is nearly 2000 years old has no meaning in terms of DNA encoded within our genetic structure as humans. And neither does your argument that because the Bible is 2000 years old it is a defunct relic. You begin to sound like the haters of the Constitution when they say it is not relevant to todays society. Think again what you are saying against the backdrop of hundreds of thousands of years of humans on the earth, and their patterns of social organization.

Interestingly, the central theme of the Holy Family in the Catholic Church did center around Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. These are archetypes. Would you say that 50,000 years ago, children were born into random settings and got reformed to same-sex family types as a general rule? I think not. I imagine that even in a community cave dwelling setting, a male coupled with a female and they had babies and kinda stuck together naturally, even against the backdrop of the collective cave society.


And so you were closer to your Dad than your Mom, well whoopdedoo. That says zero about the balance of male and female roles in your family. Even in the case of divorce, a Mom may have custody but Dad is still in the lives of the kids.