Comments by equus_posteriori
Page 1 of 15 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on December 1 at 1:21 p.m.
@LFM
"You cannot set the rules based on the thousands of exceptions to the ideal. Placing children into a situation that is less than the ideal is wrong. Your words, "whether a child is better off in one type of household than another is not a reason to legislate some kinds of parenting being OK while others not". I competely disagree. This is EXACTLY why it should be legislated. To protect children from the political agenda of a group, who would place children in a less than ideal situation."
You are confusing the issue, by bringing up a conspiracist theory of a "political agenda". Since I realize how easy it is to type where your thoughts take you, I won't delve on it.
"Now, can gays provide loving homes. Of course. Is it the ideal for children? No, not according to those that have studied it."
You decry the use of "exceptions", and speak of "ideal", but you draw your concept of what is best based on David Popenoe's work. He actually did not say "study after study", but that the "burden of social science" supported gender-differentiated parenting. Unfortunately, he also goes on to confuse the issue with repeating the finding of a Child Development journal, that "children of parents who are sex-typed are more 'competent'." Gender roles are social constructs, *based* on physical sex, but IMO, no restricted by such. (BTW, do you have a reference, for the "better in every measurable way" comment. I'd like to see what that study was about.)
As it is, I take the conclusion of any "study" with a grain of salt. All adults should understand the danger of dealing with statistics, and scientists need to be very aware of publishing their test criteria. In regards to the "ideal" and family situations, it's not really possible to know what is or isn't, unless EVERY case is the same, with ONE difference, which is being studied.
LFA, you should also take more care with your responses. I understand the difficulty, but your posts are starting to mix replies to myself, and Mr. Hill. I never asked for your reason for voting "YES" on Prop 8, and even though you've given it, I still find it less than thought out, and far more emotionally based.
The fact of the matter is, almost no families are perfect, certainly not judging by every family I've ever known, and for the government to say that gay parents are worse than straight ones is simply ridiculous. You may keep it as your opinion, and "scientists" may attempt to prove it one way or the other, but even they fall victim to influencing the results. And of course, the belief that same-sex parentage is perfectly acceptable is MY opinion, but I also see that in the abscence of the "ideal", then "acceptable" is more likely to be "good".
Posted on December 1 at 12:07 p.m.
@ilovemymoose (PART 2)
When it comes down to it, the "fitness" of a couple to provide and care for children is NOT tied to their primary sexual characteristics. But if you still think state-approved, same-sex marriage is a domino on the way to gay adoption, then you certainly have the ability (I wouldn't call it a 'right') to campaign against it. However, until you are ready to force couple to stay together "for the children's sake", then you can't think that disallowing gay couples to adopt is wrong. (BTW, the staying together for the children thing USED to be the norm, but it led to many unhappy couples, and I would imagine some unstable children. Think about it, would it be best to have a hetero couple as parents, if one were an alcoholic, or a physical or emotional abuser? What about both?
Also, have you ever considered that the idea that a male/female parentage is "best", is a romantic notion, but not really measurable? And, even if you could, you would probably see that, given ANY parenting permutation (male/female, male-all, female-all, separated, divorced, single, abusive, or non-existent), there would still be a bell curve, with children falling into the 'average' for whatever result you are looking for: human relations (general and sexual), education, economic strata, etc.).
Lastly, ilovemymoose, ask any parent around you, and they will say the same thing when it comes to their kids, that they "did the best they could". In this regard, is a hetero couple able to truly do any better than a same-sex couple?
Posted on December 1 at 12:07 p.m.
@ilovemymoose (PART 1)
". . .there are countless hetero-couples who don't deserve to raise children over a same-sex couple who prove to be better parents. With all due respect, however, I don't believe this to be part of the argument at hand."
ILMM, I provided arguments that sought to quantify hard reasoning, as to why a couple *might* be better to let adopt a child. You're trying to bring "deserve" into the argument, which I would agree is not relevant. It still stands, that what is better for a child is not necessarily what it appears on the surface. Also, you appear to be confusing the right to marry and adoption rights. Of course, I believe they are both rights which would naturally fall together, but so far they cannot be guaranteed as inseparable.
As for the psychology angle and upbringing, it's really pointless to consider. Although, I would agree that there are certain things that might be best taught from a male adult to a boy, and a female adult to a girl, there's no way to prove it. Besides, for the most part, I think much of this "special knowledge" goes untaught, and gets learned regardless. Think about it, do kids learn more about sex from their parents, or television? Does a girl need to learn about menstration from her mother, an aunt, a female friend, a school "health" class, or is it okay if her father is honest and not embarrassed to do so? Does a child learn how to emotionally deal with the opposite sex from their parents, and what if their parent is emotionally blocked themself? As for all the non-sexual (meaning male/female, and not relating to intercourse or procreation) issues, does it matter who teaches a child to cook, to clean, to drive, to fight, to make peace, or to love?
(cont'd)
Posted on November 28 at 8:53 a.m.
@Loveforall
You should understand that there is a difference in opinions on your views, and "name calling". I might call someone "intolerant", which is an observation of their actions. Now, if I said/wrote, "intolerant anus", then THAT would be name calling. . . . :)
As for your arguments "about children":
There is absolutely no relevance, to whether being attracted to a human of the same sex is a choice or not. You might as well be discriminating against people who like the color chartreuse, or people who drive Volkswagens, eat onions, and like to put toilet paper on the roll backwards (dropping on the side towards the wall). Or, how about their handedness--what about those "sinister" Left-handers, who *choose* two write with the wrong hand? The point is, that some people will live a gay lifestyle, and it has no bearing on their ability to love, maintain a stable relationship, or raise children.
Furthermore, even your own use of the term "moral issue" is telling, in that you simply disapprove of homosexuality--tell me, why does it matter, that homosexuality is a choice? You link that with your statment that "children are better off with a mother and a father", which I might even agree with on some grounds--but not necessarily based on any scientific data (of which you provided NONE, btw). Even if it were assumed that having a mother (female) and father (male) as parents was better than having two, say, women as the parents, would you deny a child the opportunity to live in a good, same-sex parent household, if there were no hetero couple available, and more importantly, that WANTED to give the child a good home? Also, as I've posted in threads previously, what exactly is better for a child, having hetero parents, or having an greater economic status? It's kind of an apples-to-oranges argumen, but I think it's reasonable, since, if we're to consider "scientific" data, then I would imagine having rich parents is better than having poor ones, so perhaps children should only go to wealthy families--but, then what about how a poor hetero couple compares to a well-to-do gay couple? Which data trumps the other?
Sure, you could say my argument is invalid, because you could romanticize, and say that money doesn't matter, and that what's more important is that the child is loved. But if that is so, then love by gay parents is just as important as love by non-gay parents.
Posted on November 28 at 8:06 a.m.
First, regarding the California State Education Code 51890, it says:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
. . .
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
I think the MYTH here, is about what the kinds are supposed to be "confused" about, regarding marriage.
The code addresses "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage", NOT about what constitutes marriage. And, by the time a child is old enough to partake in a class which teaches such responsibilities, then I doubt very much that they would be confused by a "straight" marriage, and a gay one.
Also, I have posted after other recent articles, about the rights afforded to a couple with registered, Domestic Partnership status, but unfortunately it still fails the "equality" test: A couple can REGISTER for D-P status, and receive true spousal rights, and they can also have a "civil union" ceremony, but while these together may appear to achieve the same results as a "regular" marriage, the issue is that they are still "separate but equal", which invalidates the very concept of equality. (Besides, since two elderly couples can become domestic partners, and not be considered married, then it's not *marriage* then, is it?)
Stranger, the more I see the "definition of a word" argument, the more I also see a disconnect in the communication. For example, the Yes-on-8 group says that the word "marriage" means a joining of a man and a woman (for the sake of this, ignoring whether its a religious or civil/state ceremony). I could understand that, IF it were necessary to have a word for a man-man, or woman-woman, joining--and even then, would it then be necessary to have separate words for each? But that's ridiculous, as the important part is that it's a loving couple in matrimony. As male-male and female-female relationships are combined as "gay", then all of the pairings should just fall under "marriage".
The only thing that I find somewhat confusing, is what to call the husband/wife in a same-sex marriage. Are they both husbands, and both wives, or does one become the designated gender [applying the word "gender" as to mean the socially constructed role, not to be confused with the "sex" of a person]. . .I'm thinking that we stick with "marriage" for all couples, "husband" for each male, and "wife" for each female. This would also be helpful in social situations, by letting people know the public status of a couple, while downplaying any awkwardness. For example, if some woman at a party introduces another woman as her wife, then you know they are gay and married--simple, and not confusing.
Posted on November 26 at 9:21 a.m.
@ilovemymoose
From your examples, it seems that you are looking at adoption options for families as being better-to-worse, with a hetero COUPLE as optimal, a gay COUPLE being less than optimal, and then a SINGLE person as the least desirable.
As typo has posted, it would be hard to agree on just what makes this quantification possible. Would a hetero-couple who are both social drinkers be better or worse, than a tea-totaling same-sex couple? Should a couple of low economic status be given preference over a single parent in a higher tax bracket? And these are just "measurable" examples, and don't begin to touch the realm of what really makes good parents (or single parent).
So, I am in agreement with what typo has essentially said, that pretty much any parenting is better than none.
Posted on November 26 at 8:41 a.m.
". . .intolerance for those who voted yes, which they had a perfect right to do . . . ."
So, does Starshine also not have the right to be intolerant of those who voted, to show their intolerance?
"The so-called liberals of today evolve into groups holding doctrinaire and dogmatic ideas. . . ."
And "conservatives" are different how--other than perhaps they didn't evolve, but were Created as intolerant and dogmatic?
BTW, Dr. Neill's quote is nice, but does not include that there are also "conservatives" who never even attempted a "liberal" journey!
Posted on November 25 at 7:03 a.m.
@typo
"Allowing homosexuals access only to civil unions, which lack the respect and dignity that you see in marriage, is what makes this separation unequal, and therefore unconstitutional."
But with access to a Domestic Partnership, which appears to afford spousal-like rights to same-sex couples, it would seem that the idea of a "civil union" becomes something of a dead-end. Although, the difference would appear to be in the presentation and the ceremony. That is, the D-P is something a couple *registers* for, but the civil union is the ceremony which carries the trappings of a marriage--standing before a 3rd party/witness to the joining, exchange of rings, etc.
All that being said, I think that the idea of, if you will excuse the math notation, [Domestic Partnership + civil union = (same "rights" as marriage)], is still an inequality--Why should homosexual couples be required to jump through two hoops, when hetero couples only need one?
NOTE: I don't beleive that this invalidates your argument, about a civil union being unconstitutional, because it does not equal a marriage (when it is being paraded about that it does).
Posted on November 24 at 2:11 p.m.
. . .they're not rules, exactly. . .more like guidlines. . . .
Page 1 of 15 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on December 1 at 1:40 p.m.
Actually, the only fact appears to be, "With changes at the governmental and corporate level, gays are SELDOM being denied any civil rights whatever." (stress on "seldom" is mine)
The rest is logical fallacy and opinion.
On Which One is the Mule?