The christians are going to show us who runs the country.

What's the difference between "religious freedom" and "Jim Crow"?

I'm an atheist, so it may be easier for me to view Dominion Theology as an infection than it is for a believer. I absolutely support freedom to worship as one chooses, but adamantly oppose any effort to force those beliefs onto others, especially, by force of law.

I respectfully offer these links to spread among those of like, moderate minds. The ideas expressed are not my own, but I would agree that they express ideas I would view as being bible-based.

I don't think it matters what sort of "moderate" a person is - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, spiritualist, etc.; what matters is that we recognize "holy" control by humans for what it is - pure evil. What matters is that we respect human and legal rights as the same for all.

Diverting a moment to avoid the avoidable:

I've read the faulty arguments about dictators of the 20th century being "atheist" and the harm that those "atheists" caused. The argument's faults lie in two primary premise faults:

First, that those dictators were actually "atheists," and second, ignoring that those who were atheists expected to be revered and treated as gods themselves, unquestionable authorities, often on pain of death. They sought to BE the god, writing their own "holy texts," so to speak. That is not atheism, but some form of mental illness.

It is not reality-based to equate atheism with dictatorship.

I think it extremely socially important to differentiate "religion" from "cult," just as I consider it important to differentiate "dictator" from "atheist."

/diversion


If you're of a mind to share the links, here they are:


http://www.spirithome.com/dominion.html


https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html


My only goal is to help stem the infection among vulnerable populations - the young, the desperate, the disaffected, the needy. Help them to learn that only monsters cultivate and feed on fear.

Aside from the fact that she is professionally unqualified for the job she holds, the idea that she is also a Dominion-type "Christian" strikes me as seriously scary.

I am grateful that my life-long best friend did not live to see DeVos at the head of the Dept. of Education. BFF was a career educator, an elementary school teacher, and a good one. She developed creative "units" about different things. Two that I remember are the Space Program and the Wild West. When she was developing the unit about the Space Program, she wrote to NASA, and they sent her some very cool material that she used in class. The kids loved it. She was very glad that she retired just before No Child Left Behind was implemented. She said that the paperwork was so horrible that it left no time to do anything but "teach to the test" - so no time to teach "outside the box," which was basically the way she taught.

When I think about my BFF - how dedicated she was (from the time I met her, when we were in 8th grade) to being a teacher, and how fully she committed herself to giving "her" kids the best education possible - I am SO glad that she did not live to see the unqualified (but oh-so-entitled) creature at the head of the Dept. of Education.

Religious freedom laws mean the freedom to discriminate against someone else's rights and freedoms.

acerbic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religious freedom laws mean the freedom to
> discriminate against someone else's rights and
> freedoms.

Exactly. Their purpose is to put the practice of religion (and only very specific religions and religious beliefs) above constitutional and human rights. To put into law that the practice of religion is more important than anything else in the constitution, and that the practice of religion extends beyond importance to the individual to be the ruling principle of the social group at large.

Next you'll suggest that we shouldn't have the legal right to stone people to death.

Well, now, let's not get carried away...:)

At the risk of everyone here claiming that I discriminate against the LGBT community, there is another side to this issue that seems to be ignored here. A same-sex-parents relationship is not an ideal place for a child. Most children are going to grow up, choosing their own gender identity based on the sex they were born as. That's not a rule, just how it is most of the time. That's why the LGBT community is a minority. Most children grow up to become hetrosexual. A child in a family with two fathers or with two mothers does not have the other role model. A hetrosexual girl with two fathers has no female role model. A hetrosexual boy with two mothers has no male role model. I don't think that is good in either case. In the best case, it's not ideal and is only best roughly five percent (or so) of the time, in the less likely event that the child also turns out to be gay also.

If we assume that sexual preferences are what you are born with and not what you are taught to be, then why would anyone want to do this to a child? You can't teach a child to be gay, anymore than mormonism can cure homosexuality in a gay individual. So a gay couple is not an ideal place for raising most children. If we put the interests of the child first (instead of asking what is fair to the gay couple), then a hetrosexual-parents family would be ideal for the child most of the time. Given that there are always more hetrosexual couples who want to adopt children than there are children in need of adoption, why place any child with a gay couple ever, unless one of the gay couple is their biological parent?

Please explain from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the child and not based on what is fair to the gay couple who would be denied the right to adopt any children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2017 11:01PM by azsteve.

OK, I'll bite. I've heard the role model argument before, but have never seen anything reasonable to back it up. It seems like a made-up excuse to bolster someone's personal prejudices.

Actual research appears to come to the opposite conclusion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361102
But I grant that more research should be done.

Children are exposed to more role models than their parents. They have other relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers, etc. There is usually a lot of opportunity for interaction with a wide variety of people.

Straight parents don't always provide the full spectrum of role models on an ongoing basis. Fathers are often deployed to war zones and don't see their children for years. In fact, in North American culture, children are primarily raised by women with comparatively little contact with men. The father usually works or, if both parents work, child care is usually provided by women.

Historically, the nuclear family didn't exist: children were raised by the extended family. Even when it did exist, one parent was often absent due to long work hours, travel or death. Before the 20th century, it was common for women to die during childbirth, so those children were raised by their fathers.

Are gay parents worse than straight parents? There doesn't seem to be evidence to support that claim.

This thread is so fucked up that one doesn't know where to begin. But one will begin with that first premise, that kids choose gender identity based on role models. That is where the thread should skid to a halt.

My post pointed out that sexual preferences and sexual identity are not taught, but are something you're born with. The role modeling challenges come in where a child has limited or no access to someone they can identify with, to teach them how a hetrosexual person of the same sex, deals with life in a way that can be emulated by the hetrosexual child. No need for the thread to screech to a halt. Some people just need to learn to read and to put the interests of innocent children ahead of their own beliefs that gay couples should have the right to adopt too, regardless of how it affects the children. The tone seems to be 'to hell with the children. We should be treated equal, regardless of how it affects the children,.

First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage... oh.. and then comes divorce, and then comes having two daddies or two mommies, lack of someone the child can relate to as a grown-up version of themselves. I just can't buy in to the belief that these last few steps are good for the child. It's all unfortunate. But why add alienation from an appropriate role model to the list of things the child has to deal with if you don't have to?

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people just need to learn
> to read and to put the interests of innocent
> children ahead of their own beliefs that gay
> couples should have the right to adopt too,
> regardless of how it affects the children. The
> tone seems to be 'to hell with the children. We
> should be treated equal, regardless of how it
> affects the children,.

Let's toss the ad-hominem about people who don't agree with you not knowing how to read, and the absolute falsity that people who don't agree with you don't care about children. One is a gross fallacy, the other a flat-out lie.

So let's address the actual question then, shall we?
Do children of heterosexual couples do better in any way than children of homosexual couples, as you claim?

No.

"...there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse."

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

So, see, you can have whatever opinion you like about "role models" and such.

The problem is, facts show your opinion is wrong.
Deal with that, instead of using fallacy and dishonesty to try and back up your opinion -- that's my suggestion.

HAHAHAHA!!!! So, by your logic, my boyfriend who was raised solely by his mother with no male parental influence, should have grown up gay because he didn't have a hetero role model!?!

That there are enough hetero couples available to take in all children needing adoption is also a giant load of crap. Or was this your OPINION?

Wow.


Unfounded assertion:

"A same-sex-parents relationship is not an ideal place for a child."

As opposed to what? A Mormon home? The child of a woman who can't even name the father, or the father who doesn't really know if he is the genetic contributor? Teenagers? Look around you. How many "ideal places" (and by that I assume you to mean "ideal people") do you know?

It just gets worse from there, you know, basing an entire argument on the concept of an "ideal" human and/or human relationship, super-fit for rearing children.

By your argument, most people should be outlawed from marriage AND from having children. But we don't do that, because they're "free" to choose to live their lives as they see fit.

See how that works?

Whatever we might think of people as "mate" (spouse & parent) material, guess who gets to choose?

Oh, yeah. Except the gays. Ban the gays. Most prisoners (even serial killers) can marry, but for god's sake, ban the gays.

No one is disparaging gay marriage here. When someone creates their own kids, the word 'ideal' often goes out the door because they have parental rights to the children they create on their own and a lot of people make bad choices. There is no way to prevent that within relatively reasonable circumstances. But in a gay marriage situation, the courts are in the loop every time children are placed in the home since the gay couple cannot create their own offspring. That part is unavoidable. So as long as the courts are going to be in the loop anyway, why not give the child the best possible opportunity to have role models that are statistically much more likely to match their own sexual identity, to role model from? Given that there are more hetrosexual couples wanting to adopt than there are children who need adoption, why put any child in to a less than ideal home?

>> since the gay couple cannot create their own offspring

My lesbian friends seem to have zero problem creating offspring. They've done it twice now. Go figure?

Steve, a *lot* of kids are growing up in single parent homes now. A set of gay parents automatically gives a child an extra parent.

In addition, as a teacher, I deal with a lot of parents, including gay parents. I have not yet seen a set of gay parents that I thought were poor parents, but I can't say the same of heterosexual parents.

There are worse things in life than two people who *choose* to have, love, and provide for a child. A lot worse. I've seen it!

From "Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual Parents on Children:Meta-Analysis of Existing Research"
Mike Allen PhD & Nancy Burrell PhD

"The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."


From "Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000"
Authors
Norman Anderssen,
Christine Amlie,
Erling André Ytterøy

From "Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers, and Their Children: A Review"
TASKER, FIONA Ph.D.

"Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
Get access to the full text of this article"

From "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents"
Authors
Charlotte J. Patterson

"To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances. Having begun to respond to heterosexist and homophobic questions posed by psychological theory, judicial opinion, and popular prejudice, child development researchers are now in a position also to explore a broader range of issues raised by the emergence of different kinds of gay and lesbian families."

"There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers."

FRom "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning"
Philip A. Belcastro PhD , Theresa Gramlich MS , Thomas Nicholson PhD, MPH , Jimmie Price EdD & Richard Wilson DHSc
"The most impressive finding was that all of the studies lacked external validity, and not a single study represented any sub-population of homosexual parents. Three studies met minimal or higher standards of internal validity, while the remaining eleven presented moderate to fatal threats to internal validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children reared by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."


From "Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children."
Flaks, David K.; Ficher, Ilda; Masterpasqua, Frank; Joseph, Gregory

"In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)"

These are all peer reviewed research articles dating back from 1992-2008, using the term adoptive in the search function. I cannot share the articles from my own school, but the results are the same: Your belief about gay and lesbian parents, even the ones that adopt, is not supported by actual research.

Also, try telling all the adopted people I know and the ones with step-parents or placed in foster home with heterosexuals, including my own mother, how their adoptive/step/foster parents were naturally great at parenting instead of sexually, emotionally, physically, and/or spiritually abusing them. Yeah, they really had the advantage of a mother and a father there.

One study found significant deficiencies. It was attacked, sued, and literally libeled. But it remains the largest actual random sampling study ever undertaken. And it showed kids from traditional families fare better.

"Adult children of parents who were in same-sex relationships differ notably on a variety of social, emotional and relationship factors from adult children raised by biological parents who are married and heterosexual, according to research led by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin.

The findings, to be published in the July issue of Social Science Research, are particularly significant because they are based on the first large-scale, population-based survey of young adults that features a large number of cases in which survey respondents' parents had been in same-sex relationships."
https://news.utexas.edu/2012/06/11/children_same


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/

Be sure to read what the critics say. Some of it is amazingly laughable. One critic noted that some of the peer reviewers showed a personal preference for traditional families, and therefore the entire study is tainted. Compare that to the number of gay researchers producing studies arguing that there is no problem with gay parenting. Bias is okay, as long as it's a bias toward your position.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One study found significant deficiencies. It was
> attacked, sued, and literally libeled. But it
> remains the largest actual random sampling study
> ever undertaken. And it showed kids from
> traditional families fare better.

And yet, even the author of the study admits its flaws:

"Regnerus himself acknowledged that other factors might explain the differences observed in his study, including "...a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses."

Making your polemic about it rather worthless.
Even the author of the study admits that it doesn't necessarily show what you claim it does.
Oops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2017 02:01PM by ificouldhietokolob.

From your CBS source:

"Regnerus was upfront about the funding from conservative groups, and said he pledged to groups involved that he would report whatever the data found, regardless of which way it leaned. What's more, he says some of the criticisms are valid and plausible."

"Regnerus said it's entirely possible that instability in the household led to some of the reported negative outcomes in adult children of same-sex parents. He said children of heterosexual couples in an unstable home were also found to fare worse than those in a stable environment.

"People gay or straight should stick with their partners, he said. "I think the study provides evidence of that."

I asked you on a thread a several months ago if you understood what actually goes into peer reviewed research and what is considered acceptable. It seems you haven't quite figured it out yet as Wikipedia is not a source for research.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2017 02:07PM by Itzpapalotl.

This was an epidemiological study, which type I have criticized before: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1980722,1980771#msg-1980771

It is extremely difficult to control for irrelevant factors in an epidemiological study. Unless you are looking for something very specific (e.g. the cause of a particular disease outbreak), the best you can do is use the outcome of the study to target further research using better methods. And, in fact, that's exactly what you'd do even for a particular disease outbreak. Epidemiological studies are a search technique, not a way to definitively prove a link. Using an epidemiological study to claim that children of same-sex partners fare "worse" than children of opposite-sex partners is silly.

I know you like to cherry pick, TMSH, grabbing whatever results you can find that fit your personal prejudices and then claiming that the evidence backs you up. But real science doesn't work that way.

I'm an empiricist. If solid data showed that the children of gay and lesbian parents fared worse than in traditional families -- based solely on the fact that the parents were same-sex -- I'd be concerned about those kids too. But the data doesn't show that. Also, it wouldn't count if the kids did worse because anti-LGBTQ pressures and prejudices were what was causing the bad outcomes. You can't pick on people who are different than you and then claim that they are miserable because they are different.

CZ

Concrete Zipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know you like to cherry pick, TMSH, grabbing
> whatever results you can find that fit your
> personal prejudices and then claiming that the
> evidence backs you up. But real science doesn't
> work that way.

This is the biggest study of its kind conducted by a major university. It's not a Wednesday morning bible study from the corner Baptist church. This is not cherry picking. It's a study conducted in an open manner with the biggest random sampling ever done. In this respect it was groundbreaking in its attempt to actually offer relevant data across all populations for a true comparison.

>
> I'm an empiricist. If solid data showed that the
> children of gay and lesbian parents fared worse
> than in traditional families -- based solely on
> the fact that the parents were same-sex --

The study openly states these limitations. But you cannot dismiss epidemiological studies. They are inarguably true existentially, and that's an important part of this discussion. Other factors can continue to be examined, but unless falsification of data is found, they represent a valid entry into this discussion.

The study may show a valid correlation (or it may not - there have been valid criticisms of some of the statistical methods and study design which are not just "One critic noted that some of the peer reviewers showed a personal preference for traditional families, and therefore the entire study is tainted."), but not prove causation. As the study (and you yourself) admit there are limitations including other possible causes for the observed outcomes. If the study does not control for those other factors - which it does not appear to have done - then it is erroneous to conclude that it shows that children of gay parents have worse outcomes. It would take further study which does control for those factors do properly draw that conclusion.

Without such controls, the best this study can truthfully conclude is that there MIGHT be adverse outcomes from being raised by gay parents. To attach more significance to it than that without further study looking at the other factors is just scientifically inappropriate.

And before you ask, yes, I have had epidemiology training, and I read epidemiological and medical studies every day. Part of that training included how to recognize errors including drawing unjustified conclusions. Regnerus' study is not in any way definitive. If you want to quote Regnerus, you should also read this study

"Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents". Social Science Research. 52: 615–626. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.04.005. Retrieved 28 August 2015. by Cheng and Powell which concluded the "[d]ifferences in being raised by gay/lesbian and heterosexual parents are minimal."

I'm not sure we really disagree much on this. The study is a bit like an intake interview at a doctor's office. The data presents a clear malady, but the universe of questions and possible causes is far beyond the limits of this study.

The data can conclusively state that there is a clear disparity by a number of measures between the children of traditional families versus those from gay parents, but must stop short of claiming causation. The authors say as much. I believe they also note the timing of the data may play a role as acceptance of gay relationships is on the rise. This may pave the way for a more "normative" familial experience within that population due to greater acceptance.

They reanalyzed Regnerus' data and the disparity may not be all that great.
If that is too much work, here is a report on their study

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2015/05/parenting-study.shtml

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/volume-2/september/SocSci_v2_478to501.pdf

"This analysis revisits recent controversial findings about children of gay and lesbian parents,
and shows that family instability explains most of the negative outcomes that had been attributed
to gay and lesbian parents."

Regnerus does a good job of exploring how Powell and Cheng incorrectly altered valid categories in the study to call its findings into question. He also notes they inappropriately attempt to undermine the entire study based upon a handful of admittedly bogus entries.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/05/14978/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute&utm_campaign=2756fa59fc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-2756fa59fc-84100345

The takeaway from the data that is virtually indisputable is as follows:

- The parental same-sex relationships reported by adult children are not, on average, long-term ones.

- The longer those parental relationships lasted, the better—on average—were the outcomes for adult children.

- Very few same-sex relationships lasted the entirety of the respondents’ childhood. Critics cried foul. I cried, “Reality!”

- The stability afforded by continuously intact mom-and-dad families pays benefits, on average, well into adulthood. They remain the standard against which all other forms ought to be compared.


He agrees that a long-term same-sex marriage will most certainly be a better environment for a child than any (gay or straight) home life with unstable parental relationships. But at present, the gay community does not statistically match the stability of traditional relationships.

After reading your link, I don't think Regnerus did " a good job", but we will just have to disagree.

As far as your other points, Regnerus' study was done years before same sex marraige was legal, which would affect the stability of same sex relationships. As such, by virtue of your arguments, it may not be of much relevance now - which undermines the point of your original post on this thread.

Well, let's just keep following the numbers, shall we? Here's info from a just-released Gallup poll. The rate of same sex marriage is lower and couples living together is higher than their straight counterparts. Gay marriage is slowing. This would actually cement the findings of the study as more relevant in the long term. The key is unstable parent relationships, and the gay community still lags in that area.

"Gallup's poll showed 10.6 percent of adult same-sex couples are married, compared to 13.6 percent of adult heterosexual couples. Conversely, the percentage of same-sex couples who live with their partner but are not married is larger, at 6.6 percent, than that of straight couples, at 4.2 percent."


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/06/23/Same-sex-marriage-rate-lower-than-rate-for-straight-couples-poll-shows/8651498232582/

Did you read the study by Rosenfeld in the second link I provided?

Rosenfeld shows that family transitions are highly correlated with Regnerus' adverse outcomes, and that controlling for them eliminates most of the differences. Your cited poll does not address this issue unless you make the assumption that marriages are less likely to lead to family transitions. The poll obviously does not address that factor, but given the rate of divorce among married couples it is not obvious that it is true. Couples can remain in stable relationships with or without marriage regardless of sexual orientation.

From Rosenfeld's study (pages 495-496):

"Counter-hypothesis 4 presumes that the instability of same-sex romantic unions
explained or accounted for the higher level of family transitions among children
raised by same-sex couples. Table 7 shows, however, that of the almost fivetransition
difference between columns A and B, less than half of one transition, or
0.41 transitions per subject, is accounted for by breakups of same-sex couples. The
single largest contributor to the family transitions gap between children raised by
same-sex couples and children not raised by same-sex couples is the difference in
transitions resulting from a biological parent losing custody. Children who ever
lived with same-sex couple parents experienced an average of 2.67 transitions due
to parental loss of custody, while children who never lived with same-sex couple
parents experienced only 0.41 transitions, on average, due to parental loss of custody.
As I noted above in my discussion of Table 2, the typical custody change involves
three or four transitions at once. Additional analyses (see appendix Table A6) show
that the chance of losing custody in any given year was less than one percent for
mothers partnered with men (including the biological father of the child), and more
than 11 percent for mothers partnered with women."

and:

"Regnerus (2012c) and Allen, Pakaluk, and Price (2013) have argued that samesex
couples are inherently unstable, and that therefore couple instability and family
instability are pathways through which the children of same-sex couples come to
have poor outcomes. The NFSS data show that custody loss rather than breakups of
same-sex couples explain the high rate of family transitions experienced by children
who ever lived with same-sex couples. Although the NFSS data do not provide
any clues as to why mothers with same-sex partners so often lost custody of their
children, literature on family law documents a strong bias against gay and lesbian
parents in judicial custody decisions in the past (Wald 2006). Furthermore, the
most recent research on same-sex couples in committed relationships shows that
same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in committed relationships are similarly
stable (Ross, Gask, and Berrington 2011; Rosenfeld 2014)."

Can you provide evidence that same sex relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships in situations where children are involved since 2015? Merely assuming that relationships involving marriage are more stable than those without marriage is invalid unless you have evidence to back that up given the rate of breakups of marriages.

Finally, let's not lose sight of what your original post was about:

"One study found significant deficiencies. It was attacked, sued, and literally libeled. But it remains the largest actual random sampling study ever undertaken. And it showed kids from traditional families fare better.

Adult children of parents who were in same-sex relationships differ notably on a variety of social, emotional and relationship factors from adult children raised by biological parents who are married and heterosexual, according to research led by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin."

It appears that the key factor is not whether the relationship is heterosexual or same sex, but the stability of the relationship. So let's see your evidence that same sex relationships with children are less stable than heterosexual relationships with children. As noted above, if you want to use marital status as a surrogate measure of that, you must prove that it is a valid surrogate measure.

So when the little girl with two daddies starts having menstral cycles, which parent is qualified to tell her what is happening, what to expect, and can reassure her from experience that everything will be okay?

The ones that are educated about how menstrual cycles work?

Seriously, even many women don't understand how menstruation or menarche works because of lack of education. If a pair of fathers sat down and studied and asked women how menstruation works, how would it make them less qualified? Do, YOU, azsteve, understand how menstruation works? How do single dads with daughters explain menstruation and how to absorb the flow? Like how to insert a tampon or a cup or anything?

ETA: Unless someone is seriously undereducated or has physical health issues, menstruation is not a difficult process to explain:

"Women usually have three holes: The urethra, the vaginal opening and the anus. Urine comes from your urethra, menstrual and other fluids come from the vagina, feces from the anus. When you enter thelarche (growing breasts) and pubarche (pubic hair), yu should expect to see your menarche start eventually. Sometimes it looks like a brown sludge and you might mistake it for feces at first. Don't be scared, we are here for you."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2017 11:54PM by Itzpapalotl.

Good points, and even gay couples have female relatives. There are also healthcare professionals. There are plenty of resources for those gay dads who can't or just don't want to explain it.

azsteve's fear is rooted in the weird fear of not understanding how menstruation works. There are ignoramuses (ignorami?) that believe women can just hold the fluid until the next bathroom break or the tampon goes in the anus or something else asinine that has nothing to do with modern sensibilities.

Well, when I started menstruating, my parents had divorced and I lived with my dad.

And my dad was an OB/GYN.

So yes, he reassured me everything was fine and normal, and here's what to expect... and if I had questions I could ask him, or if I didn't feel comfortable talking to him, I should ask an adult woman I trusted.

We then went to the store, and he explained in the aisle what the different products did, and we bought a sample of things so I could try them out and figure out what I preferred.

He was more than qualified to talk to me about it, and did so with compassion and caring.

You know... like a parent does.

Seriously not a big deal - unless you're someone who gets freaked out by the concept of being a parent.


A home with a loving parent (or parents) is the ideal location for a child. Sexual orientation, genders of parents, number of parents - none of that matters. As long as the child is loved and cared for, the child is in an ideal environment.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Given
> that there are more hetrosexual couples wanting to
> adopt than there are children who need adoption,
> why put any child in to a less than ideal home?

Where did you come up with this? Do you really mean there are more hetero couples than *babies* waiting to be adopted?
Because in 2014, there were over 100,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted and sadly unwanted because they're not babies.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport22.pdf

Why would you care about the children of LGBTQIA parents that you will never see?

There are children in Pakistan that are sold as sex slaves and starving children in Sudan. How much do you worry about them?

What about the stressed out teen mums that can't take it any more and put their babies in microwave ovens or leave them in hot cars? What about the sick cishetero men raping their own daughters?

The only thing that I can think of is this: if you link sexual minorities with aberrant behaviour -- i.e. these people are immoral deviants that are behaving abnormally so therefore they are a threat to impressionable innocent children -- like vampires making more vampires.

However, if you think LGBTQIA people are naturally created and are not inhuman monsters, you might just think they are no better or worse at parenting than anyone else.

I wonder if there is some underlying obsession with what other people are doing sexually behind this.

Otherwise, like you said, why would they care? A child is being loved and provided for by caring adults for cripes sakes. The child learns to appreciate diversity and acceptance instead of being indoctrinated about gender and "proper" sexuality all the time. Sheesh!