- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How about 10000 years for an example?
You still haven't answered my question. What is the difference between common sense and common belief?
How about 10000 years for an example?
Here's a question that maybe someone with more knowledge on these statistics than I (looking at you CC) can provide.
I have a feeling that on average any parents who want to adopt end up being better parents than a good percentage of biological parents.
I think when it comes to adoption, fostering, etc. they probably are equal when you're comparing stable homes and stable relationships.
However when you get into gays and lesbians having their own biological children with a partner unless both biological parents are somehow involved in the upbringing of the child things can never be equal. Nobody wants a sperm donor father and nobody desires a surrogate mother. Whenever either biological parent is completely absent from a child's life there are some repercussions. There will always be some form of an emotional hole as the child ages and realizes that one of their biological parents is completely absent.
So I'm all for allowing gays and lesbians to adopt. But when it comes to creating their own children I heavily advocate that they find a biological parent who wants to be involved with the couple on some level so the child never has that missing piece emotional hole. Lesbians can do a great job raising a kid but they will do a far better job if they utilize and support the active involvement of the man who biologically fathered the child. Likewise with gays. It may be far more convenient to create a child with someone who will opt out of their parenting rights but it's a selfish practice that diminishes and makes light of every little child's need to feel loved by the two adults that created him or her.
parental investment as a form of reproductive survival in which parents display discriminative parenting”. Altruistic behavior in humans is adaptive when it increases the genetic fitness of individuals. Because parents incur economic, physical, and mental costs in raising a child, they purportedly invest the most in those who have the greatest amount of shared genetic material—their biological children.
Some scholars contend that although adoptive families encounter unique barriers to family functioning, they also have particular psychological and social strengths (Cohen, Coyne, and Duvall 1993; Lansford et al. 2001).
For example, Kirk (1984) suggests that adoptive parents often have intensified commitments to creating an ideal family—particularly if their
path to parenthood is long and costly. Adoptive parents also may have a more positive view of their children and experiences as parents (Priel
et al. 2000). Lending support to compensation theories, these strengths tend to coexist with low self-evaluations of parenting ability that
may reflect feelings of ambivalence, doubt, and guilt surrounding adoptive parenthood (Priel et al. 2000; Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-Den
Bieman 1990).
You still haven't answered my question. What is the difference between common sense and common belief?
That might be valid if you could prove that not one single homosexual ever raised a kid during the last 10,000 years, and didn't raise them just as good as a heterosexual.
GL with that.
Edit note: made a clairification.
Great question. I had some statistics on that...I'll need to go find them. My recollection is that your premise is accurate.
Did I not explain that pretty well with the whole God example?
Dont you think adopted children deserves to have a mother?
Unbelievable, after Captain completely disassembled your argument, all you can counter with is one over simplistic analogy.
Good to see that you have also avoided my follow up post as well.
Keep this up and you could get yourself a place on the Harvard Jessup Moot team.....
Dont you think adopted children deserves to have a mother?
Thats why people like you care more about statistics than common sense.. CC says he do not even know what common sense is..
"Statistics and proof" all the time over common sense.. Thats just ridiculous. How about a childs right to have a mother? How about that? Please prove that that is bad, for a child to have a mother, and its better to have 2 dads, prove that with statistics and a bunch of silly internet article..
You people drive me crazy.
Irrelevant, your original argument was that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt as they would most likely make worse parents than heterosexuals.
Captain has suggested otherwise. You next move is to either correct your position in light of Captains evidence or alternately to rebut his argument.
Do you always create RED HERRINGS when your statements prove to be nothing more than unfounded assumptions based on fear?
No people like you drive me crazy. You make claims that relate to the real world that can be objectively measured. You are not making claims as to what is your favourite colour, ie subjective claims. You are making objective claims that can be measured empirically. And one way of backing up claims is using empirical studies, aka statistics.
Secondly you are moving into legal arguments of rights... Don't confuse rights with x is better at parenting than y. Which I must add was the original premise of your argument.
Rights are a legal and ethical construct. Saying that x is more likely to be a better parent than y is a claim that can be backed up with empirical studies.
Anyway back to the argument....
Of course two men would make worse parents, the child would grow up without a mother. I have seen no proof that gays make BETTER parents, and since gays and straights are not the same, the likelyhood that they are equal parents are very low..
So YOU think it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother? Thats your opinion, not mine.. I never made objective claims such as that.. We all know that children needs a mother, if you do not, I suggest you stop debating on the internet and just withdraw for a few weeks and start thinking for yourself for awhile.
As for lesbians I have said all along they would make better parents than two gay men.
So YOU think it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother? Thats your opinion, not mine.. I never made objective claims such as that.. We all know that children needs a mother, if you do not, I suggest you stop debating on the internet and just withdraw for a few weeks and start thinking for yourself for awhile.
As for lesbians I have said all along they would make better parents than two gay men.
No I am not making any claims that it is logical or rational for a children to grow up without a mother. What I am asking you is provide empirical evidence that a child with homosexual parents would be worse off compared to a child that has a mother.
I would like for you to be intellectually honest and actually quote directly any passage where I have said that it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother.
I dare you to. And I invite that fellow posters to ask that Maximus finds this quote.
Do you know the difference between someone saying:
it makes sense that x would be better than y,
as opposed to what I have said:
do you have evidence that suggests that a child growing up with their mother will do better than a child that does not have a mother?
Its not a matter of evidence, this is a matter of common sense.
I have seen no proof the the contrary btw.. I have told you a number of factors which should get you thinking about this..
Mom/dad is obviously the most healthy parenting relationship(on average), its natural, you get both influence from a mother figure and a father figure, both non-confusing feminine and non-confusing masculine input. Its better than single parent houses, its better than gay parents, its right out the best solution, the natural solution..
Or would you also contest that single parent situations on average is worse for children than mom/dad parenting situation?
Dont you think adopted children deserves to have a mother?
Well, you prove to me that gay couples, two men for example have raised children, and that they have done it better than straights.. If they havent its highly unlikely they are even equal good parents, because a man & a man is not the same as a woman & a man, and therefor unlikely equal at raising a child either..
How about a childs right to grow up with a mother? Only the most unfortunate children do not, if their mother die or something. Its the most natural human relationship.. You want to take that away?
Did I not explain that pretty well with the whole God example?