But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. How do you know this? Have you had a homosexual relationship to make the comparison? If not, you know nothing about homosexual relationships.. You are simply bringing your prejudices into the discussion. You know no more about homosexual relationships than anyone except homosexuals. LoisLois, are you on the Autism spectrum? You seem to have trouble making connections between socio-biological phenomena.
Mid Atlantic: "Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it's beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I'm aware of studies claiming "no difference at all", yet there's adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/06/behold-the-quartet-of-truth/ " Darron: "Anecdotal evidence does not trump scientific research." Come on Darron. From a social scientific perspective, the unfavorable testimony of persons who were raised by homosexual "parents" is entirely valid as a scientific means of measuring the effect of gay parenting on them. It is certainly as valid as would be a favorable testimony by such persons.Which is to say that neither of them are valid. For every individual that you can present with a negative story about being raised in a gay home I can come up with dozens of horror stories about being raised in a heterosexual home. You need objective evidence in the form of large well done unbiased cohort studies Anecdotal evidence serves no function in this discussion. That's right. The vast majority of people have been raised in heterosexual homes. That means the vast majority of people in prisons or who have been diagnosed with mental disease or who are violent or otherwise anitsocial have been raised in heterosexual households. It's hardly a sign of good upbringing. LoisGenes, Lois.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. So straight people who remain childless are less socially important than those who reproduce?Yes!
No, it's not guaranteed an adoption it will turn out "great" for the child, but then again it is not guaranteed to turn out "great" if adopted by a hetero couple either.I see "great" was the wrong term to use, "bearable" is a better term.
Sure there can be extreme hedonism among gays, but those will not likely be the ones starting a family in the suburbs either. Do you really believe the "hedonist" types will be adopting??? And that goes for any hedonist, regardless of orientation.I think the hedonist types of gays are probably not too different from suburban-couple types. Maybe I'm wrong. http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html The question was do you really think hedonist types would be the ones adopting children? An aberrant case featured in a newspaper does not make any point as for that one there are many more pertaining to straight couples.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. So straight people who remain childless are less socially important than those who reproduce?Yes! Then couples who have one child are less socially important than couples who have eight children. Bill and Hillary Clinton are less socially important than the auto mechanic I used to work with.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. This is not a well thought out argument. Reproductive couples are socially important only to the extent that they maintain the population. In an overpopulated world where there are too many children and not enough parents to care for them all ( Such as the one we live in) then couples who are unable to reproduce but willing to raise a child are every bit as socially important as those who can reproduce. the exisitance and acceptance of non-reproducing couples are likely to reduce the probability that a child will grow up in a foster home or with parents who are incapable of caring for them properly.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. How do you know this? Have you had a homosexual relationship to make the comparison? If not, you know nothing about homosexual relationships.. You are simply bringing your prejudices into the discussion. You know no more about homosexual relationships than anyone except homosexuals. LoisLois, are you on the Autism spectrum? You seem to have trouble making connections between socio-biological phenomena. You obviously know nothing about homosexual or heterosexual relationships or about autism. Get an education before you again prove your ignorance. Have you checked out your own autistic characteristics? They are legion. LOis
Mid Atlantic: "Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it's beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I'm aware of studies claiming "no difference at all", yet there's adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/06/behold-the-quartet-of-truth/ " Darron: "Anecdotal evidence does not trump scientific research." Come on Darron. From a social scientific perspective, the unfavorable testimony of persons who were raised by homosexual "parents" is entirely valid as a scientific means of measuring the effect of gay parenting on them. It is certainly as valid as would be a favorable testimony by such persons.Y Which is to say that neither of them are valid. For every individual that you can present with a negative story about being raised in a gay home I can come up with dozens of horror stories about being raised in a heterosexual home. You need objective evidence in the form of large well done unbiased cohort studies Anecdotal evidence serves no function in this discussion. That's right. The vast majority of people have been raised in heterosexual homes. That means the vast majority of people in prisons or who have been diagnosed with mental disease or who are violent or otherwise anitsocial have been raised in heterosexual households. It's hardly a sign of good upbringing. LoisGenes, Lois. If it's genes, then being brought up by homosexual parents will make no difference. And it doesn't.
Lois, are you on the Autism spectrum? You seem to have trouble making connections between socio-biological phenomena.Have you checked out your own autistic characteristics? They are legion. What is wrong with autism.
Genes, Lois.If it's genes, then being brought up by homosexual parents will make no difference. And it doesn't. Nature and nurture never quarreled. There is nature AND nurture, and the interaction of the two. Whether something is in the genes or not, the way someone is brought up can still effect them. Being brought up by a coal miner effects a person. Being brought up at sea effects a person. Being brought up in a household of gay adults effects a person. How can it not?
Other Quadrant has gone strangely silent regarding my lack of peer reviewed studies to back my opinion. Could have something to do with me posting a synopsis from just such a paper?
Other Quadrant has gone strangely silent regarding my lack of peer reviewed studies to back my opinion. Could have something to do with me posting a synopsis from just such a paper?Your articles are, as I said, the equivalent of the ones that Mid-Atlantic posted.
Other Quadrant has gone strangely silent regarding my lack of peer reviewed studies to back my opinion. Could have something to do with me posting a synopsis from just such a paper?Your articles are, as I said, the equivalent of the ones that Mid-Atlantic posted. You cannot tell the difference between peer-reviewed research and unsupported statements. Enjoy your deliberate ignorance.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. So straight people who remain childless are less socially important than those who reproduce?Yes! Then couples who have one child are less socially important than couples who have eight children. Bill and Hillary Clinton are less socially important than the auto mechanic I used to work with. Anyone who reproduces is equally socially important - although not always on a global scale, but on a local, ethnic scale.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. This is not a well thought out argument. Reproductive couples are socially important only to the extent that they maintain the population. In an overpopulated world where there are too many children and not enough parents to care for them all ( Such as the one we live in) then couples who are unable to reproduce but willing to raise a child are every bit as socially important as those who can reproduce. the exisitance and acceptance of non-reproducing couples are likely to reduce the probability that a child will grow up in a foster home or with parents who are incapable of caring for them properly.In the world I live in, (the western world) the population is not being maintained. Non-reproducers who are willing to raise orphans are decent people, but not more important.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense. It means straight couples reproduce, most people are straight, therefore straight relationships are socially more important. This is not a well thought out argument. Reproductive couples are socially important only to the extent that they maintain the population. In an overpopulated world where there are too many children and not enough parents to care for them all ( Such as the one we live in) then couples who are unable to reproduce but willing to raise a child are every bit as socially important as those who can reproduce. the exisitance and acceptance of non-reproducing couples are likely to reduce the probability that a child will grow up in a foster home or with parents who are incapable of caring for them properly.In the world I live in, (the western world) the population is not being maintained. Non-reproducers who are willing to raise orphans are decent people, but not more important. As long as the world population is being maintained it doesn't matter. It's overpopulation that is the problem and anything that reduces it is an advantage, wherever it's happening. How about picking up a couple of African or Asian orphans and raising them to even out the odds? It sure beats producing more kids in the western world and increasing the world population. Lois
As long as the world population is being maintained it doesn't matter.I would avoid the term "maintained" as it is suggestive that it must be maintained at current levels. Also, saying "it doesn't matter" suggests that any sort of future for humanity is as good as any other. I'm not sure if you really think that is the case. I certainly don't.
It's overpopulation that is the problem and anything that reduces it is an advantage, wherever it's happening.Culture plays a large part in overpopulation. Tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units are part of the solution.
How about picking up a couple of African or Asian orphans and raising them to even out the odds? It sure beats producing more kids in the western world and increasing the world population.We have an obligation to all children who are born into the world. But we do not have an obligation to all adults who want to birth children, particularly where they are not committed to raising them. Steps must be taken to provide adoptive families for such children. Steps must also be taken to avoid the future occurrence of such "less then ideal" situations.
It's overpopulation that is the problem and anything that reduces it is an advantage, wherever it's happening.Culture plays a large part in overpopulation. Tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units are part of the solution. Heterosexual relationships have been the only kind of relationships, throughout almost the entirety of human existence, that has produced overpopulation. Singling out "tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units (as) part of the solution" seems specious to me, as any tightly bonded monogamous family units would serve as well, for the best interests of children. (While the heterosexual ones go on contributing to overpopulation.)
Heterosexual relationships have been the only kind of relationships, throughout almost the entirety of human existence, that has produced overpopulation.Heterosexual relationships have been the only kind of relationships. until recently in Britain, that have ever produced any population. I had thought that we were all in agreement that the continuation of some sort of human population was desirable.
Singling out "tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units (as) part of the solution" seems specious to me, as any tightly bonded monogamous family units would serve as well, for the best interests of children. (While the heterosexual ones go on contributing to overpopulation.)Whether systemic or cultural, a lack of family structure has everything to do with overpopulation. Countries, societies and subcultures where biological parents take greater responsibility for the raising of their own children suffer less from overpopulation, not to mention many other social ills. That might not be an argument for hetero over homosexual monogamous pairings, but does contradict the idea that heterosexual pairings who commit to the effective raising of their own biological offspring will "go on contributing to overpopulation."
as any tightly bonded monogamous family units would serve as well, for the best interests of children.Again, not any tightly bonded monogamous family unit would serve as well. Any configuration might make do quite well, but some configurations are better then others.
Heterosexual relationships have been the only kind of relationships, throughout almost the entirety of human existence, that has produced overpopulation.Heterosexual relationships have been the only kind of relationships. until recently in Britain, that have ever produced any population. I had thought that we were all in agreement that the continuation of some sort of human population was desirable.
Singling out "tightly bonded monogamous heterosexual nuclear family units (as) part of the solution" seems specious to me, as any tightly bonded monogamous family units would serve as well, for the best interests of children. (While the heterosexual ones go on contributing to overpopulation.)Whether systemic or cultural, a lack of family structure has everything to do with overpopulation. Countries, societies and subcultures where biological parents take greater responsibility for the raising of their own children suffer less from overpopulation, not to mention many other social ills. That might not be an argument for hetero over homosexual monogamous pairings, but does contradict the idea that heterosexual pairings who commit to the effective raising of their own biological offspring will "go on contributing to overpopulation." Right. Note that I used the term "singling out", not in reference to the part of your quote about "tightly bonded monogamous... nuclear family units", but rather to your use of the word "heterosexual". That is why I italicized the word and bolded it, and followed it with another sentence that explained what I was indicating you to be singling out.