LGBT? Not in my state.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 08:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  

Yep, that's pretty much what I've seen in general. I have yet to hear any evidence-based reason to deny marriage, adoption, or child custody to somebody based on them being gay. I haven't even heard any good reason to suspect that there is anything to look for.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 12:36 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 02:58 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  How in the crap does sexual orientation impact parenting ability?

Are white parents better because they're white? Are black parents better parent because they're black? Or how about because they're a woman? That is the EXACT same premise you're basing your statement on.

Actual parenting can overcome REAL hurdles like poverty and social or economical status.

In case you haven't noticed, and not from a Calvinist perspective, in terms of basic evolutionary sexual orientation women appear more oriented to the care of children.
I am merely claiming that heterosexuality is more apt both physically and psychologically in terms of the most ideal state of affairs relevant to those involved .
My premise is based on the natural order of evolution which ,good , bad ,or indifferent sees humanity as it is today.
Of course on a case by case basis there will be wonderful same sex parents; as more a more generalized prognosis gay parenting cannot be compared with heterosexual parenting because of its relevant newness,
The fact that there are deplorable heterosexual parents does not say same sex parents will be any better.
AS for actual parenting, whatever that connates to you overcoming poverty and social and economic status you really need to elaborate.

Not even going to rebut. It's pointless.

You're so unlikable and ignorant it's maddening.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
04-06-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 06:41 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 03:16 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If that were true (I do have a perception that men get more physical than women) then logic would suggest that a couple of men would mean the chances of violence on the kid is higher than a man and woman.

If the stereotype holds then in many cases wouldn't the second man in the home be more likely to step in and protect the kid if the other was violent?

Or is it that homosexual men don't generally have the same tendency towards physical violence that heterosexual men do so kids are actually safer in same-sex relationships?

The problem with logic is it takes you anywhere you want to go as long as you choose the right starting points. Unless/until we have studies showing what the rates are I don't see that we can accurately predict what will happen.
Yes, all very good points.
Especially the first point because it doesn't have to assume there is a difference between a straight man and a gay man.
But certainly perhaps for an effeminate gay man his profile better suits that of a female rather than a potentially aggressive male.

But ultimately when considering gay adoption the trade off isn't whether a man-woman parent group is better than a man-man or woman-woman. The trade off is whether a man-man or woman-woman is better than orphanage and foster homes. Unless proven to be problematic I don't think we should take the cautious approach. I think gay adoption should be embraced until a point that proves it is unsuitable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 01:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But ultimately when considering gay adoption the trade off isn't whether a man-woman parent group is better than a man-man or woman-woman. The trade off is whether a man-man or woman-woman is better than orphanage and foster homes. Unless proven to be problematic I don't think we should take the cautious approach. I think gay adoption should be embraced until a point that proves it is unsuitable.

We are in violent agreement.
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 12:58 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 12:36 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  In case you haven't noticed, and not from a Calvinist perspective, in terms of basic evolutionary sexual orientation women appear more oriented to the care of children.
I am merely claiming that heterosexuality is more apt both physically and psychologically in terms of the most ideal state of affairs relevant to those involved .
My premise is based on the natural order of evolution which ,good , bad ,or indifferent sees humanity as it is today.
Of course on a case by case basis there will be wonderful same sex parents; as more a more generalized prognosis gay parenting cannot be compared with heterosexual parenting because of its relevant newness,
The fact that there are deplorable heterosexual parents does not say same sex parents will be any better.
AS for actual parenting, whatever that connates to you overcoming poverty and social and economic status you really need to elaborate.

Not even going to rebut. It's pointless.

You're so unlikable and ignorant it's maddening.
We can't all be warm and cuddly like you K.C.
Perhaps you would like to explain, as a chosen christian, to this forum, as to why your god chose such diversity in sexual attraction. Evolution posits a chancy struggling survival and our existence remote and highly unprobable.
As a Calvinist you see yourself as one of god's chosen based on original sin, and destined for Heaven, with the rest of the designated doomed in eternal Hell.
Atheists by virtue of this 'chancy existence' have the choice to live hedonistically or formulate humane moral systems based on group equality.
If your god chose sexual attraction of varying forms so be it, but why do many Christian groups opt for conventional marriage, as seemingly Biblica,l if God doesn't give a toss about such things. N.B. I am addressing this to you, as an theist on an atheist forum????

For some years I have been accused of homophobia.
Much of my writings re gay parenting have been misconstrued to suggest such. which is quite untrue. For the record anyone may engage in whatever sexual behaviour they may choose, providing such does not become a serious threat to society. Paedophilia, thrill killing etc.
Most of the people on this forum do not believe in god, let alone the Calvinist version.Our ethical standards reflect our beliefs and understandings of existence.
This makes it even more imperative that we engage life to full capacity and in keeping with our innate sexuality, This is not to say gross promiscuity, by any group is a good idea. Atheists can be far more moral than christians and with no fatuous after life promises.

My argument was, and still is, simply that opposite sex parenting seems preferable, pragmatically, all things equal, to same partner parenting. This is not to say that the latter is wrong or unacceptable. The fact that opposite sex couples can produce their own shared off spring is but one factor indicating this. I imagine that most happily married couples can see their arrangement as preferable to such as would be from innately same sex attraction marriage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  My argument was, and still is, simply that opposite sex parenting seems preferable, pragmatically, all things equal, to same partner parenting. This is not to say that the latter is wrong or unacceptable. The fact that opposite sex couples can produce their own shared off spring is but one factor indicating this. I imagine that most happily married couples can see their arrangement as preferable to such as would be from innately same sex attraction marriage.

I've yet to see you ever coherently articulate why that should be so.

You're also implicitly denigrating all kinds of other extant family relationships. For example: since there are actual reasons - trivially, economic ones - why two parents are better than one, just what do you propose doing about that? What would you propose doing - actually doing, legally - if your unfounded assumption were true? Any remotely meaningful legal response would require external, empirical criteria and standards.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
There are good parents and bad parents and everything in between. Sometimes the hetero parents are like oil and water or like gas and a flame (as my parents were). The same is most likely true of same sex couples. This bullshit that a male/female partnership is the best way to raise kids is ridiculous, it's what people are used to. While it is true that it takes male and female to make a baby, being able to have a child doesn't make a good parent. The inability to make a baby doesn't mean a person would be a bad parent.

Maybe men are more physically violent...women can be violent too and also emotionally abusive.

My brother and my son-in-law are the main caregivers of their kids and it's because they are better suited to the task than my daughter and my sister-in-law.

Kids need people who love them, care for them, and protect them to the best of their ability.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
04-06-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
(04-06-2015 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  For some years I have been accused of homophobia.
Much of my writings re gay parenting have been misconstrued to suggest such.
I'm not going to judge you. To my mind if you are homophobic then this is a factual statement rather than a judgement of your own character. I'm not interested in assessing whether you are a good person or whether you have good values or good ethics.
From your recent posts it does appear to me that you are homophobic.
In review you stated
(03-06-2015 12:43 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  ...the issue relating to gay parenting is not totally clear.
We don't need to turn to religion to see an evolutionary need to procreate by opposites. When it comes to gay parenting this is an issue very largely in it's infancy.
As to whether it works out well for children, equal to heterosexual parenting, or better in the long term will take some time to find out.
What I come to understand from your post (correctly or incorrectly)
1. You are assuming there is an issue relating to parenting that is specific to gay parents.
2. You have pointed to evolution in support of your statement however you have only addressed the issue of procreation rather than parenting. Procreation is different from parenting. Procreation is the process of creating a child whereas parenting is the process of raising a child. I think you are implying (please correct me if I am wrong) that since a gay couple cannot conceive (in today's environment) that this might be an indicator that gay parenting has not historically been a successful behaviour and hence that ability has been removed from the gene pool.
3. You see that we should err on the side of caution and only allow (or support/encourage) gay parenting if we can prove that it is not detrimental?

My response to item 2 is this.
It would show a poor understanding of evolution. (but most likely I am incorrectly understanding your position)
It is a non sequitur to assume since procreation is not possible then gay parenting is inadequate or detrimental.
My challenge to you would be to ask you to provide some details of issues (not related to procreation) that are inherent with parenting by gay parents.

My response to item 3 is this.
Why assume that gay parenting is worse than orphanage or foster homes? Why default to a position that kids are better off not being adopted than being adopted by gay parents? Why demand that gays need to prove their ability to parent is equal to or better than heterosexuals before they can adopt?

Another item that you previously posted which to me indicates that you are homophobic is:
(03-06-2015 02:05 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  (2)Procreation keeps the world going.Is it so bad you want to stop procreation?
I am not saying procreation is in any way obligatory. As for gay parenting adoption would seem preferable to utilizing surrogacy. We already have a huge population and many needy kids.
(3) As for child rearing gays,in the long term, they may well prove better parents. This remains to be seen.
For item 2, why do you single out gay parents, why do you not also include infertile couples?
Do you think it is fine for infertile couples to utilise surrogacy but not fine for gay couples?
For item 3. again why do you default to a position that gays need to prove themselves as suitable parents before you being comfortable that society supports gay parenting?

(04-06-2015 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  My argument was, and still is, simply that opposite sex parenting seems preferable, pragmatically, all things equal, to same partner parenting.
This isn't an argument, this is you asserting your opinion. You haven't yet backed this up with an argument comparing gay parenting with non gay parenting.
(04-06-2015 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  The fact that opposite sex couples can produce their own shared off spring is but one factor indicating this.
This is a non sequitur. As explained above. Procreation and parenting are different things. You have not provided an argument supporting your position that fertile couples make better parents than infertile couples.
(04-06-2015 03:46 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I imagine that most happily married couples can see their arrangement as preferable to such as would be from innately same sex attraction marriage.
Some happily married couples are same sex attraction marriage. Their arrangement is not preferable but instead it is the same.
Why do you assume that your own arrangement is preferable to same sex attraction marriage?
I can easily understand that you personally would prefer to be married to a woman but you must understand that a gay man would prefer to be married to a man. How do you come to your assessment that one is preferable over the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2015, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2015 06:10 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
So I have a couple of people posting against marriage equality on my Facebook. I'll share a couple of my responses here.

In response to: http://peterpellicaan.com/2014/04/22/the...-equality/
Quote:My answers
1. We already have marriage equality.
A marriage is defined as one man of a particular race and one woman of that same race to the exclusion of all others. If you're black and you want to marry someone you can. They just have to be black too. See, the same law applies to everyone so it's equal. Or... perhaps that isn't equality?
2. A relationship that cannot produce life is not equal to one that can.
So we must prohibit infertile couples from marrying to be consistent. Look, anyone who has already had children then gets into a relationship with no plans for more surely couldn't get married. Their relationship isn't worth as much as the relationship that bore children. Bearing children is what determines the worth of a relationship.
Or... perhaps it is something like love or commitment or the nurturing of life rather than the producing of life that matters, whether that nurtured life be children, pets, friends, or simply each other. I tend to think it is the nurturing rather than the production of life that marks the value of a relationship.
3. The government should legislate for the common good rather than the uncommon exception.
OK this response is largely opinion: Right now I think the institution of marriage has fallen into disrepute. It is exclusionary and young people know it. At every ceremony around the country it is required by law to read aloud "marriage is the union between one man and one woman...". It is required by law to do so otherwise the marriage is not valid. Not only are same sex couples excluded but hetero sex couples are required by law to rub their faces in it with each ceremony. By law we must state that marriage is an exclusionary institution available only to some and not to others. This erodes the institution of marriage. To retain marriage as a force for good in our society it must be fair and must be seen to be fair. Until that sense of fairness is restored marriage itself is under threat. To me being against marriage equality is to be against marriage.
4. Children have the right to a mother and a father.
I've yet to be presented with a case where granting recognition of a same sex couple's marriage affects whether children have a mother and father. This isn't an argument against marriage equality. It is an argument against adoption or against surrogacy, both of which are already legal in some form or another and which are not affected by legislation before the parliament.

Myself I support marriage, and I think legislation before the parliament is necessary to ensure marriage continues to be recognised as a force for good in this country.

In response to: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
Quote:Does same sex marriage affect whether "children may know and be raised by their biological parents"? Let me see if I can enumerate the cases:
1. A gay couple adopt: This would have no effect on whether children know and are raised by their biological parents. They may or may not know the parents as per their own wishes and the wishes of their adoptive parents. The option of being raised by their biological parents is presumably already terminated.
2. A gay couple have children from previous partners: The previous relationships have already broken up. Will allowing the gay couple to marry affect whether they know or are raised by an estranged partner? I would not expect it to.
3. A child is born through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or some other means who otherwise would not have been born. As this child would not have existed the plea should be changed to "so that children may not be born into same-sex households". Well, that's something people can hold differing opinions on but can you really tell me it is affected by whether the couple's marriage is recognised by government or not?
...
I'm not supposing that it is an emotional outburst. I'm looking at it from the question of whether or not it makes the case that fundamental rights are being eroded. What I see in the article is a claim that hate speech laws would prohibit the marriage equality debate from being had. Yet as far as I can tell the hate speech laws in Australia are similar to those in Canada, so in what way is the debate being legally squashed here, and how would that be affected by changing the marriage act?

There is a separate question about whether children can be successfully raised without both a mother and father but in short I think they can and I think the discussion on that topic is best kept separate from discussion of whether or not that discussion can be had.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
05-06-2015, 06:33 AM
RE: LGBT? Not in my state.
One thing that's so frequently overlooked ---

Even if you have total equality for same sex marriage --

There's still a group that's discriminated against.


Single people.

Many couples simply do not get married - because they're against the idea.

.....

Myself -- I refuse to cooperate in a ritual that has it's roots in the same mentality that brought us slavery.

Marriage - is indeed "traditionally" about one man -- OWNING one woman.. (or more than one)....

We can stop the charade that we need to promote "family values"...

There's 8 billion people on the planet....


Give the state sponsored procreation program a fucking break already....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: