CrusaderRabbit08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,022
- Reaction score
- 741
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You would then never ever get such a measure passed.
What measure?
You would then never ever get such a measure passed.
You would then never ever get such a measure passed.
What measure?
Any measure that took away tax status from marriage.
When you post something of substance I'll be happy to respond. I'm altogether bored with your pompous "I'm right because I say I'm right and I've been saying I'm right for two years and if you disagree it's not my problem because I'm right" bloviations.
Does that mean couples who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry?
No, the above conclusion does not logically follow.
If this is true, then explain why the state would not sanction gay marriage.
615 offspring from gay parents; 387 controls from straight parents. No differences in 7 types of functioning.Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.
Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. 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.
No difference between children raised by gay parents vs. straight parents on 3 scales. Only issue was society's issue with homosexuality; parenting was a non-issue.Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce. Results are supported by J. Schwartz's (unpublished manuscript) investigation of the above variables in adult-aged daughters in relation to mothers' sexual orientations, with a focus on role modeling theory.
Interesting study. No significant issues when homosexual parents obtain custody when a divorce occurs.Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.
Reviews the literature on the impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases. As a result of the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States and the increasing awareness that many parents (an estimated 1.5 million) are homosexual, the courts and divorce mediators have become actively involved in child custody placement decisions involving homosexual parents. While custody decisions have tended to reflect stereotyped beliefs or fears concerning the detrimental effects of homosexual parenting practices on child development, the research literature provides no evidence substantiating these fears. Several specific custody issues are discussed as well as social factors relevant to lesbian motherhood.
No significant difference in important emotional health issues between children raised by lesbian parents vs. straight parents.Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.
Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Implications for school psychology practice and training are discussed.
Homosexual parenting vs. Heterosexual parenting is explored. No significant differences were found, though homosexual parents tended to be more strict, more responsive, and more consistent with their children.Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Compared the responses of 33 homosexual (HMS) fathers with those of 33 heterosexual (HTS) fathers on the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. HMS subjects did not differ significantly from HTS subjects in their reported degree of involvement or in intimacy level with children. HMS subjects tended to be more strict and more responsive to children's needs and provided reasons for appropriate behavior to children more consistently than HTS subjects. Possible explanations for these similarities and differences in parenting styles are explored.
Lesbian parents vs. Biological parents. Both are equally competent and unburdened. Styles may be different, but no other differences.Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755-764.
The phenomenon of planned lesbian families is relatively new. The overall aim of this research was to examine whether planned lesbian mother families differ from heterosexual families on factors that are assumed to influence the parent-child relationship, such as experience of parenthood, child-rearing goals, couple relationship, and social support. One hundred lesbian two-mother families were compared with 100 heterosexual families having naturally conceived children. A variety of measures were used to collect the data, including questionnaires and a diary of activities kept by the parents. Lesbian parents are no less competent or more burdened than heterosexual parents. Both lesbian and heterosexual parents consider it important to develop qualities of independence in their children. However, "conformity" as a childrearing goal is less important to lesbian mothers. Furthermore, lesbian social mothers feel more often than fathers in heterosexual families that they must justify the quality of their parenthood. There are few differences between lesbian couples and heterosexual couples, except that lesbian mothers appear less attuned to traditional child-rearing goals and lesbian social mothers appear more to defend their position as mother.
Lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. No differences except that the lesbian parents exhibited more parenting awareness.Flaks, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 104-114.
Compared 15 lesbian couples and the 3- to 9-year-old children born to them through donor insemination with 15 matched, heterosexual-parent families. A variety of assessment measures were used to evaluate the children's cognitive functioning and behavioral adjustment as well as the parents' relationship quality and parenting skills. Results revealed no significant differences between the two groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the two groups of couples differ: Lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Gay male couples vs. heterosexual couples. The gay couples were happier and more equitable in their parenting tasks. Other than that, no significant differences.McPherson, D. (1993). Gay parenting couples: Parenting arrangements, arrangement satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.
Twenty-eight gay male parenting couples and 27 heterosexual parenting couples from across the United States participated in a study comparing gay parenting couples and heterosexual parenting couples. Gay parenting couples are already existing gay couples into which a child has been brought prior to the child's 9-month birthday and in which the child is presently being reared. Parents' division of labor and satisfaction with their division of labor was assessed using Cowan and Cowan's Who Does What? Relationship satisfaction was assessed using a single question on relationship satisfaction and Spanier's 32-item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Results revealed gay parenting couples demonstrate significantly more equitable arrangements of parenting tasks and roles and significantly greater satisfaction with those arrangements than the heterosexual parenting couples. A single question on relationship satisfaction revealed no significant difference between groups in reported satisfaction, while the 32-item DAS revealed the gay parenting couples to be significantly more satisfied with their relationships than the heterosexual couples, especially in the area of dyadic cohesion and affective expression. Post-hoc testing revealed a gender difference: Women reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with parenting arrangements than their husbands or gay parents. Findings are explained in terms of three factors unique to the experience and social setting of gay parenting couples.
The impact on the children of gay fathers based on 4 concerns. No negative impact.Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552.
Presents data from a 3-year study on the quality and nature of the relationships of homosexual fathers with their children. In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children. Fathers were aged from 24 to 64, and the children who were interviewed ranged from 14 to 33 years of age. Addresses the nature of the father-child relationship and the children's adjustment to their father's homosexuality. Four issues frequently raised in custody cases are discussed: Do gay fathers have children to cover their homosexuality, do they molest their children, do their children turn out to be gay in disproportionate numbers, and does having a gay father expose a child to homophobic harassment. Concludes that concerns that gay fathers will have a negative impact on their children's development are unfounded.
Children's sexual identity when reared by lesbian mothers vs, heterosexual mothers was explored. No difference in boys; few in girls. Mostly, both groups were similar.Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.
Compared the sexual identity and social relationships of 30 daughters and 26 sons (aged 3-11 yrs.) of 50 homosexual mothers with 28 daughters and 20 sons of 40 heterosexual mothers. Mothers were currently unmarried White women aged 25-46 years. In addition to age and race, mothers were matched on length of separation from father; educational level and income; and number, age, and sex of children. Subjects were from rural and urban areas in 10 U.S. states and lived without adult males in the household for a minimum of 2 years. Data from children's tests on intelligence, core-morphologic sexual identity, gender-role preferences, family and peer group relationships, and adjustment to the single-parent family indicate that there were no significant differences between the two types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls. Data also reveal more similarities than differences in parenting experiences, marital history, and present living situations of the two groups of mothers. It is suggested that the mother's sexual orientation per se should not enter into considerations on parental fitness that are commonly asserted in child custody cases.
Children in lesbian households vs. those in single-parent heterosexual households on sexual identity. No significant difference. In fact, no difference on any emotional/behavioral scale.Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.
Compared the psychosexual development, emotions, behavior, and relationships of 37 children (aged 5-17 yrs.) reared in 27 lesbian households with 38 children (aged 5-27 yrs.) reared in 27 heterosexual single-parent households. Systematic standardized interviews with the mothers and with the children, together with parent and teacher questionnaires, were used to make the psychosexual and psychiatric assessments. The two groups did not differ in terms of their gender identity, sex-role behavior, or sexual orientation. Also, they did not differ on most measures of emotions, behavior, and relationships, although there was some indication of more frequent psychiatric problems in the single-parent group. It is concluded that rearing in a lesbian household per se does not lead to atypical psychosexual development or constitute a psychiatric risk factor.
Children of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers in regards to developmental, intellectual, and emotional functioning. No significant difference.Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 545-551.
Forty 5- to 12-year-olds, divided equally into groups according to their mothers' sexual choice and within group by sex, were assessed with a developmental history, WISC scores, the Holtzman Inkblot Technique, and the Human Figure Drawing test. Subjects' gender development was not identifiably different in the two groups. Prevalence of disturbance was not found to be a function of the mother's sexual choice.
Thank you for making my point for me CC. You can't cite any study to support your claims.
All you can do is proclaim your adversaries don't understand you. Its a sad and pathetic style of argument but considering how weak your argument is, not surprising.
Typo. I am a very fast and very inaccurate typer. Thank goodness for spell check. :mrgreen:BTW, you've been posting all this time and still can't get my name right? Hint: There are only two t's in Texmaster. Try to pay more attention to detail. It does explain how sloppy your arguments are though when you can't even get this right.
Except you took the comment out of context, as you tend to do. Please debate honestly. I know it will mean that your destruction will be more complete, but at least you'll have your integrity.Pointing out your lies is just getting easier the more your post
Poor texmaster. Has to post dishonestly in order to vainly attempt to salvage his position. Lying is the the last desperate hope of the defeated. I clearly stated my position, here:Busted. Again. Your lies are more and more transparent. Its painfully clear you made that exact claim. Poor CC, can't even keep up with his own posts.
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
No, when you make a logical fallacy...which you do quite often, and it negates your position, it is my duty to point it out. Sorry if you don't like it. Easy way to correct that. Don't do it. :lol:Nice dodge to my challenge. No shocker though.
You've given links to A function of them. That's all you've done. You've failed to provide any evidence that this is what they were absolutely designed to do. This too, is called an appeal to nature fallacy. And it too dismisses your argument.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Ok this has to be the dumbest response you've made so far. By far, this is the worst argument I have ever seen on this issue.
I've already given you links explaining the function of the penis and vagina when it comes to procreation yet you continue this sad but now extremely amusing denial of basic 4th grade science.
hint: There's a reason they are called "reproductive organs" CC
I've already explained it twice but I'll break out the crayons for you once more. It proves the natural connection between heterosexuality and nature. Cannibalism has also been around since the begging of time. An act does not make it natural. Your inability to prove any natural connection to homosexuality is just sad you keep clinging to it.
Problem is, this proves nothing. At least nothing to do with your argument. Yet you still haven't figure this out.Actually I have supported my argument by citing the history of the species and the sexual drives and woman's sexual cycles for pregnancy that only heterosexual sex and produce a child naturally.
I've already pointed it out several times. Not my fault if you don't get it. Try googling the term. Perhaps when you read the definition, you'll get it.Logical fallacy is a parent definition to other specific fallacies. Its painfully obvious you didn't even know that.
Now please, point to the specific fallacy you are claiming and quote what I said thats supports this laughable charge.
Hint: Googling a term you don't understand is pretty obvious. Try not to do it again.
Another lie and misrepresentation by you. Here, once again, just for you:Another lie by you.
I quote:
Please make your decesion on what false argument you are going to go with next time mmmkay?
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
Here, so you don't forget, and so you can get my argument correct:From the guy who claims genetics has nothing do with it. Then says it does. Then says it doesn't
Guess what? I never claimed that you are born with ANY sexual orientation. Research shows that one's sexual orientation, gay OR straight is created by a one, some, or a combination of the following factors: biology; heredity; hormonal/chemical/genetic structure; social constructs. What the actual make up IS, is unknown, but these are the components that are possible.
Nope. That was to demonstrate your lack of understanding of genetics. Thought you'd understand that. Guess you didn't.Thats called a recessive gene and it can be proven
Are you going to claim now that homosexuality is a recessive gene therefore going back to your original genetics argument?
Please make up your mind as to what argument you are going to make and stick with it.
No, it's irrelevant because of your inability to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, though it has been explained to you several times. I know it destroys your argument, but either admit that you do not understand the difference, or admit that your lack of understanding is deliberate. Choose one.LOL Of course you would say that since it proves heterosexuality has a genetic basis in nature.
No it doesn't for two reasons: 1) you have none...at least not one that is valid and; 2) you STILL don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Pity.Yeah. Kinda goes to my entire point. lol
Since you have proven that you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, you can't even understand the concept of what you just said.And you STILL can't prove homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in any way shape or form.
This has to be one of the most pathetic arguments you have made. Sorry, procreation is not the only natural act. :lol:Thanks for making my point for me, again. The point being that ONLY heterosexual sex can propegate the species naturally. There is NO natural function of homosexuality and therefore no basis in considering it as natural as heterosexual orientation as you have claimed then denied you made the claim.
And yet since procreation is not related to sexual orientation only sexual behavior, it is still irrelevant. Like I said, what are you going to do now that this is no longer part of the equation?Thats your problem. You can't dismiss procreation as a key component to heterosexual sex because it is a requirement to propegate the species unlike homosexuality which you can't even prove is as likely as heterosexual orientation even though you made that specific claim.
Hell, you wont even admit what the function of a sexual organ is :lol:
I read your claim. And dismissed it as more of a appeal to nature fallacy...as most of your claims are. Your cannibalism example has already been destroyed. You cannot distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. In short, your argument is a complete mess. If I were you, I'd start over.Actually what I was addressing if you had read carefully, was your argument that just because homosexuality has been found throughout history that somehow makes it natural.
again, your quote:
Do you even bother to read what you claim? My response to you was just because homosexuality has been found in history does not make it natural. Cannibalism, human sacrifice have both been found in the history of man but that in no way makes them natural. It is the flimsiest of arguments you use to support yourself.
And once again, without a fact or study to support your claim. :2wave:
And I'll repeat, procreation is irrelevant to the argument. When you understand that, you'll understand why your argument is a complete failure.Dodging again I see. I'll repeat:
Please explain how the first humans "learned" how to procreate without oral or written language.
Please list all studies you have that show homosexual orientation has a natural history beyond the act being in history.
Go right ahead....
Where did I say I was trying to change the law?Still can't admit the burden of proof is on the side that wants to change the law
Sad really because you know you can't prove it which is why you try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof on your opposite side.
You still don't listen or read. That's OK. When you can be honest about what I said, perhaps then you will correct yourself. I doubt it, but one can hope.If you want to send a positive public message support your claims with some hard facts from actual studies instead of staying in the world of theory.
And once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the concepts contained in this debate, simple definitions that would assist your understanding, and that you refuse to debate honestly by presenting my position accurately. I understand that doing all that would make your position meaningless, and you must save face some way.Once again you prove you cannot prove anything you are claiming. You are permanently stuck in the world of theory and you refuse to get out because you can't find the evidence that supports your claims.
Its a sad sad little world you have made for yourself and your denial of even basic sexual function and the role of sexual organs in the body itself makes it all the more calamitous.
But you've yet to prove it accurate. And until you do it is another example of your failure in this debate.But I do want to thank you for this line.
If I had room in my sig, this would be there in lights. It is by far the funniest argument I have ever seen on this issue. Makes for a great laugh.
Do you REALLY want me to do this? Some folks around here have seen what happens when I'm asked this question. It isn't pretty...for the asker.
So folks...what have we learned. We have learned that posters like texmaster, Charles Martel, and Taylor are guilty of the following:
1) Not understanding the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
2) Showing that the penis and vagina can function as sexual organs, but not being able to prove that they were designed for that.
3) Committing the logical fallacy "appeal to nature" over and over.
4) Having their position that the children of gay parents do not do as well as those of straight parents be completely disproven.
5) Not understanding that procreation is not a requirement for child rearing and is therefore irrelevant when discussing what benefits the state.
6) Misrepresenting the arguments of others.
7) Failing to prove their position on all levels.
I'm sure there is more, but it's been a long day and I'll allow others to complete the list if they'd like.
I see you're still making stuff up CC. Is it fun to debate yourself?I will now demonstrate how the arguments of Charles Martel and Taylor, both who seem to believe that children raised in gay households do not do as well as those in straight households are complete and utter bunk, are invalid,
ok I don't know what is wrong with the link to make it post double there, odd
4) Having their position that the children of gay parents do not do as well as those of straight parents be completely disproven.
Even if my mother had been a stay at home mom, he'd probably turn out the same; there are certain things that a women can not teach a man. A woman can not see from the eyes of a man (vice-versa) and therefore can not truly relate or associate with the many problems and milestones of man. Not having a father caused my brother to veer and he is still veering, he still unsure of himself, he is still lost, he still needs someone to pick him up and guide him, and this is the case for many young boys without fathers.
Fathers should make a point to play essential figures in their son's lives, young men without the supportive guidance of a father often fall into the vicious jaws of crime, more so the pattern of absentee father would most likely continue generation after generation. So it is what parents teach their children, that they carry and pass onto their own children.
While many single parent moms do heroic work parenting their children and while some children manage to excel under the challenges of father absence, it has become clear from numerous studies that the fastest road to both economic and social poverty in this country is for a man to voluntarily leave his children, either before marriage or after.
72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America's rapists grew up the same way.
The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father
Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality
Captain are you STILL trying to figure out what your penis is for?2) Showing that the penis and vagina can function as sexual organs, but not being able to prove that they were designed for that.
Captain are you STILL trying to figure out what your penis is for?
Well for one thing I urinate alot with my penis.
What are you saying?
I can tell you, based on both personal experience and interviews with hundreds of motherless American women, that losing a mother at an early age is one of the most stressful life events a person can face. It completely rips apart the fabric of a child's life.
The obvious.
Well for one thing I urinate alot with my penis.
Sometimes I play with it sometimes I put it in my girlfriends mouth and or vagina.