What is the ideal family?

[CriticalThought]

You do realize your equating college education to sexual behavior? Do you even understand your question here and why it doesn't apply to our conversation?

I'm making fun of your argument. You are saying that the ability to procreate makes opposite sex couples better than same sex couples. But you didn't really think it through. For one, same sex couples do not have the disadvantage of unplanned pregnancies. This means that they can wait until they are ready to have children, which is one of the factors that predicts a child's success. You also argue that two parents of the same sex lacks diversity, but the family structure actually provides a unique diversity to children. As I said before, contrary to being confused, children of same sex couples are more likely to be aware of and understand gender roles than those who are raised by opposite sex couples.

The inability to procreate make same sex couples different than opposite sex couples. It does not make opposite sex couples inherently better. There are advantages and disadvantages to having the abilty to procreate and having a different gender makeup.

Now let us cut the bull****. You are trying to make a value statement that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. When you use terms like "best" and "not equal", to describe a difference, then that is exactly what you are doing. Don't try to shovel that crap, because I'm not buying it.

 

[reefedjib]

What does beastiality have to do with homosexuality? One is a behavior between a human and nonconsenting animal and the other is a behavior between two consenting adults.



Evidence of what? That seeing parents rape animals would be bad for kids? I'm still not sure what that has to do with homosexuality.



Yes.



No it isn't. Deviance is violation of cultural norms or a behavior that is markedly different than the norm.

But I'm not suprised that "morality" is the basis for your opinion. For that matter, all morality is constructed. Unless, of course you are arguing that you follow something that you believe is absolute morality. What might that be? Some sort of relgion perhaps?



Yup. The world ended when people stopped observing the Sabbath. The world ended when the institution of slavery was abolished. The world ended when people of different races were allowed to marry. The world ended when people used pain killers, condoms, and artificial insemination. All of these were things that people considered at one time "immoral".

Isn't sad that your morality is unreasonable? I would much rather follow a reasonable morality than an unreasonable morality. You konw, the kind of morality that is based on reality. Such as the reality that homosexuality, in and of itself, is harmless, and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples.

I do not know why you are bringing religion into this discussion nor why you are claiming that I am using religious arguments in same.

Bestiality and homosexuality are deviant behaviors. They are immoral. Where do you want to draw the line as to what is acceptable?

 

[CriticalThought]

I do not know why you are bringing religion into this discussion nor why you are claiming that I am using religious arguments in same.

You brought morality into the discussion. Morality is based on some system of morals and ethics. What system of morals or ethics are you using to argue against homosexuality?

Bestiality and homosexuality are deviant behaviors. They are immoral. Where do you want to draw the line as to what is acceptable?

That is easy. What does and does not cause harm. Two consenting adults can engage in homosexual activity without causing harm, but raping an animal does cause harm. Studies have shown that those who cause harm to animals become more likely to harm humans in the future. Those who are raping animals today are more likely to be raping humans tomorrow.

 

[reefedjib]

You brought morality into the discussion. Morality is based on some system of morals and ethics. What system of morals or ethics are you using to argue against homosexuality?



That is easy. What does and does not cause harm. Two consenting adults can engage in homosexual activity without causing harm, but raping an animal does cause harm. Studies have shown that those who cause harm to animals become more likely to harm humans in the future. Those who are raping animals today are more likely to be raping humans tomorrow.

Asshole is for ****ting, not ****ing.

 

[CriticalThought]

Asshole is for ****ting, not ****ing.

Teleology eh? The hand is not a reproductive organ, so do you want to condemn all masturbators? The mouth is not a reproductive organ, so do you want to condemn all people who practice oral sex?

 

[reefedjib]

Teleology eh? The hand is not a reproductive organ, so do you want to condemn all masturbators? The mouth is not a reproductive organ, so do you want to condemn all people who practice oral sex?

Nope. Just ass ****ing.

 

[CriticalThought]

Nope. Just ass ****ing.

If you don't like it, then don't do it.

Also, you argument doesn't really apply to lesbians, does it?

Sucks when you get angry. Can't really think straight. I'll wait for you to catch up.

 

[hallam]

I'm making fun of your argument. You are saying that the ability to procreate makes opposite sex couples better than same sex couples. But you didn't really think it through. For one, same sex couples do not have the disadvantage of unplanned pregnancies. This means that they can wait until they are ready to have children, which is one of the factors that predicts a child's success. You also argue that two parents of the same sex lacks diversity, but the family structure actually provides a unique diversity to children. As I said before, contrary to being confused, children of same sex couples are more likely to be aware of and understand gender roles than those who are raised by opposite sex couples.

The inability to procreate make same sex couples different than opposite sex couples. It does not make opposite sex couples inherently better. There are advantages and disadvantages to having the abilty to procreate and having a different gender makeup.

Now let us cut the bull****. You are trying to make a value statement that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. When you use terms like "best" and "not equal", to describe a difference, then that is exactly what you are doing. Don't try to shovel that crap, because I'm not buying it.

You are making fun of my argument because you don't understand the species or people. You equate them to numbers but people are not numbers. Like I said only a progressive would compare a defunct classification system to human behavior. You think if I can get to place A and you can get to place A that were are equal. We are not equal. Distance to A would matter. So with this behavior to raising kids. Behavior, especially raising children, is a resource taxer. If you took the time to understand those articles you cited, you would understand they all they are saying is that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples can get to place A only. What those articles fail to demonstrate and what you fail to accurately portray is what it takes to get to place A.

So you don't have to buy my bullsh&t. I don't want you too because I sure don't want to be on the side of someone who does equate race to behavior. All you have to do is realize that your argument is bullsh&t too. All you have done is shown that you can define a term in a fairly unpragmatic, unrealistic way and fail to support those definitions. You stacked the deck and cant admit it.

 

[reefedjib]

If you don't like it, then don't do it.

Also, you argument doesn't really apply to lesbians, does it?

Sucks when you get angry. Can't really think straight. I'll wait for you to catch up.

No, it does not apply to lesbians.

Not sure what you mean about being angry - I am not. You are a condescending little something aren't you.

 

[CriticalThought]

You are making fun of my argument because you don't understand the species or people. You equate them to numbers but people are not numbers. Like I said only a progressive would compare a defunct classification system to human behavior. You think if I can get to place A and you can get to place A that were are equal. We are not equal. Distance to A would matter. So with this behavior to raising kids. Behavior, especially raising children, is a resource taxer. If you took the time to understand those articles you cited, you would understand they all they are saying is that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples can get to place A only. What those articles fail to demonstrate and what you fail to accurately portray is what it takes to get to place A.

So you don't have to buy my bullsh&t. I don't want you too because I sure don't want to be on the side of someone who does equate race to behavior. All you have to do is realize that your argument is bullsh&t too. All you have done is shown that you can define a term in a fairly unpragmatic, unrealistic way and fail to support those definitions. You stacked the deck and cant admit it.

Ah, you are getting angry. How cute.

Fact A: The major differences between same sex couples and opposite sex couples are procreation and gender makeup.
Fact B: Procreation has its advantages, such as the ability to make your own children, and disadvantages, such as unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.
Fact C: Opposite gender makeup has its advantages, such as different perspectives, and disadvantages, such as an unawareness of the significance people place on gender.
Fact D: Evidence shows that, all else being equal, children of same sex couples are just as well off as those of opposite sex couples.
Conclusion: Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are different, but neither is inherenlty better than the other.

Talk about "resource taxers" all you want, it doesn't change any of those facts or the conclusion they come to.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, it does not apply to lesbians.

Not sure what you mean about being angry - I am not. You are a condescending little something aren't you.

Better a condescending little something than someone so obsessed with other people's sex lives that he wants to deny them the right to raise children based on single sexual act they may or may not even engage in.

 

[reefedjib]

Better a condescending little something than someone so obsessed with other people's sex lives that he wants to deny them the right to raise children based on single sexual act they may or may not even engage in.

Hey you gotta have standards for something as important as adoption. Somebody does have standards, you know.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hey you gotta have standards for something as important as adoption. Somebody does have standards, you know.

Yeah, social workers have standards, and they are the one's largely responsible for adoption.

And this is their code of ethics.

Code of Ethics

And I invite you to read this part...

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

And this part...

Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

 

[TaskmasterX]

1. I never argued that just because animals do something, it is moral. I only argued that homosexuality occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. I never said natural means moral.
2. European pole cats and sheep have homosexual pair bonds which include anal sex. Baboons do as well, but they exhibit more bisexual tendencies.
3. Your argument that "if everyone were gay we would cease to exist" as a means of justifying denying gays the right to adopt children is refuted. It is a matter of choice, as you yourself admit when it comes to other couples. You have no right to interfere in that choice.
4. When it comes to adoption, it is what is in the best interest of children. Same sex couples can provide stable, committed, and loving homes to children and the evidence has shown that children raised by same sex couples turn out just as well as those raised by traditional couples.

Edit: And apparently Rhesus monkeys also engage in anal sex.
Edit edit: Apparently a lot of species of primates have been observed in anal sex, both heterosexual and homosexual. Although most primates seem to be bisexual in nature.

My argument "if everyone were gay we would cease to exist" was not a means of justifying denying gays the right to adopt children, but rather a justification that homosexual behavior are exceptions to normal behavior, not normal behavior. I also said that if gays can provide a loving home and have shown (just like any adopting heterosexual family should also show) that they have been married for at least 3 years, then that's certainly better than allowing a child to continue to live in a inhospitable environment. But this is a poor solution to the real problem - people that shouldn't be having kids, having kids. There is no question that a child being born to parents for all the wrong reasons and then having to be shuffled around, possibly abused along the way, until they find a loving gay couple that have been married for 10 years to raise them is NOT better off than a child born to a loving heterosexual couple that has been together for 5 years or longer and decide to make the commitment to have kids.
And provide proof of an animal that completely forsakes the opposite sex and solely has sex, including penetration and ejaculation, with animals of the same sex.
Again you are nik-picking through my post when, if you read the whole post, you find that your reply just doesn't even do a half-ass job of covering the major points.
If we were baboons, I'd be mounting you right now.

 

[reefedjib]

Yeah, social workers have standards, and they are the one's largely responsible for adoption.

And this is their code of ethics.

Code of Ethics

And I invite you to read this part...



And this part...

And you have highlighted the erosion of morality in our society.

 

[CriticalThought]

And you have highlighted the erosion of morality in our society.

Yeah, because what is important to society is being so obsessed with what you infer about other people's sex lives that you would deny children a good home on the basis they may not grow up having the same animosity towards anal sex as you do.

Yup, good standard. You really sold that one.

 

[UtahBill]

Those arguing perversions instead of something related to the OP, please either get a room, or start a new thread somewhere else, like maybe another forum.....

 

[reefedjib]

Yeah, because what is important to society is being so obsessed with what you infer about other people's sex lives that you would deny children a good home on the basis they may not grow up having the same animosity towards anal sex as you do.

Yup, good standard. You really sold that one.

It would not be a good home if they engage in those practices.

 

[CriticalThought]

My argument "if everyone were gay we would cease to exist" was not a means of justifying denying gays the right to adopt children, but rather a justification that homosexual behavior are exceptions to normal behavior, not normal behavior. I also said that if gays can provide a loving home and have shown (just like any adopting heterosexual family should also show) that they have been married for at least 3 years, then that's certainly better than allowing a child to continue to live in a inhospitable environment. But this is a poor solution to the real problem - people that shouldn't be having kids, having kids. There is no question that a child being born to parents for all the wrong reasons and then having to be shuffled around, possibly abused along the way, until they find a loving gay couple that have been married for 10 years to raise them is NOT better off than a child born to a loving heterosexual couple that has been together for 5 years or longer and decide to make the commitment to have kids.
And provide proof of an animal that completely forsakes the opposite sex and solely has sex, including penetration and ejaculation, with animals of the same sex.
Again you are nik-picking through my post when, if you read the whole post, you find that your reply just doesn't even do a half-ass job of covering the major points.
If we were baboons, I'd be mounting you right now.

Interesting view.

Given that there isn't enough adoptive homes for children now, I don't think applying a standard that you can't adopt unless you have been married 3 years is a good idea.

Also, as I'm sure you are aware, there are states which do not recognize gay marriages from other states. So I could be gay married for 10 years in Masschusettes and then have my adopted kids taken away in Arkansas on the basis that they don't recognize adoption rights of "umarrried" couples.

 

[roguenuke]

Right. I don't see a disagreement here. It is impossible that homosexuality will become a majority or even a significant fraction of our population. Our genes prohibit this from happening. So to continue to perpetuate the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal, when it never can be, is flawed. It is instinctual to want to procreate. So yes, gays wanting have children are just following their instincts regardless of their choice in sexual partners.

Why shouldn't homosexuals and homosexual couples be considered normal? We consider it perfectly normal for a person who knows they are infertile to get married and start a family. We also consider it perfectly normal for them to try other methods, including IV, surrogates, sperm banks, adoption, etc., to try to raise children, even if they both are not the biological parents of those children.

In fact, I believe that it is even considered abnormal in this day and age in the US to live in an extended family or to have more than 3 or 4 children. I know that at least some believe this is strange, since I grew up in both situations. So, since this isn't "normal", we should just prevent these families from existing? Why?

I don't care if it is a choice or not to be gay because those who are US citizens should still have all the rights of US citizens, and there is nothing that proves that being homosexual is, in itself, harmful to anyone. And there is certainly no research that I've ever seen that shows homosexuals, in general, harm children they have raised or are raising. If you want to show that homosexuals raising children is somehow harmful to those children, provide legitimate research to prove such an assertation.

I would much rather see a homosexual couple be able to raise a child than to leave that child with abusive/neglectful parents or in an orphanage their whole life.

 

[CriticalThought]

It would not be a good home if they engage in those practices.

Funny, I thought a good home was a stable, committed, loving environemnt where children grew up with postiive outcomes.

But you are entitled to your deep seated and irratoinal animosity towards those who have sexual practices different than your own and to whom you would wish to deny the right to raise children based on nothing more than that the unfounded conviction that they are somehow less good people for being different than you.

I love people like you. You remind me why I value critical thinking and social justice.

 

[reefedjib]

Those arguing perversions instead of something related to the OP, please either get a room, or start a new thread somewhere else, like maybe another forum.....

I am within the scope of the OP:

It is for that reason that I think step, adoptive, same sex, mixed, extended, etc. families can be just as good or better than the "traditional" nuclear family that conservatives advocate as ideal. I'm not saying they always are, because they have their own unique challenges, but to assume they are always inherently inferior to the "traditional" ideal, seems very misguided.

 

[CriticalThought]

I am within the scope of the OP:

I agree with UtahBill. You can leave my thread. You have nothing valuable to contribute aside form an irrational and ill willed opinion towards same sex couples.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Why shouldn't homosexuals and homosexual couples be considered normal? We consider it perfectly normal for a person who knows they are infertile to get married and start a family. We also consider it perfectly normal for them to try other methods, including IV, surrogates, sperm banks, adoption, etc., to try to raise children, even if they both are not the biological parents of those children.

Infertile couples usually have no control over their condition. Their condition is not normal. Their behavior, in wanting to procreate, is.

In fact, I believe that it is even considered abnormal in this day and age in the US to live in an extended family or to have more than 3 or 4 children. I know that at least some believe this is strange, since I grew up in both situations. So, since this isn't "normal", we should just prevent these families from existing? Why?

Your talking apples and oranges. Compare what percentage of families across the world are extended vs. non-extended and 1-2 child families vs. 3-4, you will find they are far higher percentages of the population compared the rate of homosexual behavior in the population.

I don't care if it is a choice or not to be gay because those who are US citizens should still have all the rights of US citizens, and there is nothing that proves that being homosexual is, in itself, harmful to anyone. And there is certainly no research that I've ever seen that shows homosexuals, in general, harm children they have raised or are raising. If you want to show that homosexuals raising children is somehow harmful to those children, provide legitimate research to prove such an assertation.

I would much rather see a homosexual couple be able to raise a child than to leave that child with abusive/neglectful parents or in an orphanage their whole life.

Read my last post. I said the same thing. I also added that this is a poor solution to the real problem - people that shouldn't be having kids, having kids. There is no question that a child being born to parents for all the wrong reasons and then having to be shuffled around, possibly abused along the way, until they find a loving gay couple that have been married for 10 years to raise them is NOT better off than a child born to a loving heterosexual couple that has been together for 5 years or longer and decide to make the commitment to have kids. I've never accused gay couples of being any more malicous than non-gays. It is the reason gays, or any one for that matter, are having to adopt in the first place, that is my point.

 

[roguenuke]

Infertile couples usually have no control over their condition. Their condition is not normal. Their behavior, in wanting to procreate, is.

Your talking apples and oranges. Compare what percentage of families across the world are extended vs. non-extended and 1-2 child families vs. 3-4, you will find they are far higher percentages of the population compared the rate of homosexual behavior in the population.


Read my last post. I said the same thing. I also added that this is a poor solution to the real problem - people that shouldn't be having kids, having kids. There is no question that a child being born to parents for all the wrong reasons and then having to be shuffled around, possibly abused along the way, until they find a loving gay couple that have been married for 10 years to raise them is NOT better off than a child born to a loving heterosexual couple that has been together for 5 years or longer and decide to make the commitment to have kids. I've never accused gay couples of being any more malicous than non-gays. It is the reason gays, or any one for that matter, are having to adopt in the first place, that is my point.

Yet, you have admitted that gays have a desire to procreate as well but that they choose to be with someone that they know they can't have children with. So do you think that an infertile heterosexual couple is more desirable than a gay couple, just because of their sexual orientation? Because afterall, some couples know before they get married that one of them can't have children. Do you think that gay couples should not be allowed to have their own children, via in vitro or surrogate help? Why should a gay couple have to prove that their relationship is more stable than a straight couple (like the 3 or 10 years marriage thing)?