• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On average would straight couples make better parents then gay couples?

On average would straight couples make better parents then a gay couple?

  • Total voters
    37
CaptainCourtesy said:
Methodology. I reviewed the methodology used. It's sound. The biggest complaint from those who reject the conclusions is that there is not enough data.
Click to expand...
I was just noting that others have disagreed with you when reviewing the data.

I think ultimately there are times when one must get off one's own backside and review the data for himself.



I have a lot of respect for Christians, also. I defend them, often, in the Religious forum. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Mon-moderate Christians do not support gay marriage and this is mostly for religious reasons.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that this is relevant though. Most liberals support gay marriage for political/social reasons.

Every site that has been posted with "data", the data has been spun or misrepresented to fit in with the site's agenda. Further the methodology of the data is flawed, or if they reviewed some positive data, that review was flawed. One must be cognizant of the sites presented for evidence. Presenting a study done by evangelicals on the dangers of abortion is far less valid than presenting a similar study by the AMA. Hence, a study on gay marriage presented by the APA has far more weight than one presented by a pro-Christian organization. One must look at agenda, validity, credentialing, etc... Questioning a source is valid in debate.
Click to expand...
I know all of this. The point is that Christians sites to me are no more generally less valid than liberal ones or for that matter moderators on message boards(;)). The point is to actually look at these things and not assume and dismiss.

One can question the source, and one must remember that this is mostly the author(and in this particular case the author seemed to be accredited.) not the site which matters, but dismissing it because it is from a site with a particular viewpoint is not valid. Even official bodies often have agendas, they are far from immune. I don't for instance consider the EUroplot or New Labour as better sources than well-reasoned Christian ones, in fact I'd be more inclined to think the other way.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I was just noting that others have disagreed with you when reviewing the data.
Click to expand...

Sure. But none of them have refuted it.

I think ultimately there are times when one must get off one's own backside and review the data for himself.
Click to expand...

I never post a study that I haven't reviewed. I did lots and lots of research into those posts, and if you look at them, I didn't just post the links and quotes. I added personal commentary to each one. When reviewing these studies, I did not post ones whose methodology I questioned, even if the results supported my position.

I'm not sure that this is relevant though. Most liberals support gay marriage for political/social reasons.
Click to expand...

I never post studies from liberal websites. I either post them from a professional site, from the originating journal's site, or from the author's or another credible, non-biased site. If I find a study from a liberal website, I will try to track down the original. I am quite aware of the bias of sources and try to mitigate this as much as possible.

I know all of this. The point is that Christians sites to me are no more generally less valid than liberal ones or for that matter moderators on message boards(;)). The point is to actually look at these things and not assume and dismiss.
Click to expand...

See above. I consider sites, such as liberal, conservative, religious, or atheistic somewhat biased. I prefer to use sites that are either professional, journals, or originating studies.

One can question the source, and one must remember that this is mostly the author(and in this particular case the author seemed to be accredited.) not the site which matters, but dismissing it because it is from a site with a particular viewpoint is not valid. Even official bodies often have agendas, they are far from immune. I don't for instance consider the EUroplot or New Labour as better sources than well-reasoned Christian ones, in fact I'd be more inclined to think the other way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Whether professional sites have some bias is not very relevant to me, considering that many of these have peer review and validity standards to adhere to. Well-reasoned Christian sites do not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure. But none of them have refuted it.
Click to expand...
And you haven't refuted their's to my knowledge.



I never post a study that I haven't reviewed. I did lots and lots of research into those posts, and if you look at them, I didn't just post the links and quotes. I added personal commentary to each one. When reviewing these studies, I did not post ones whose methodology I questioned, even if the results supported my position.
Click to expand...
I was talking about myself.


I never post studies from liberal websites. I either post them from a professional site, from the originating journal's site, or from the author's or another credible, non-biased site. If I find a study from a liberal website, I will try to track down the original. I am quite aware of the bias of sources and try to mitigate this as much as possible.
Click to expand...
You posted them though, you are a liberal; "out and proud". These sites are analogous to you not to the data you quote.

See above. I consider sites, such as liberal, conservative, religious, or atheistic somewhat biased. I prefer to use sites that are either professional, journals, or originating studies.
Click to expand...
Your getting confused. These sites reviewed the data as you did, where they got the data from is what matters.

See it goes 1.) data ---> you ----> board.

And

2.) data ----> these sites ----> me(who is simply quoting them) ----> board.


I disagree. Whether professional sites have some bias is not very relevant to me, considering that many of these have peer review and validity standards to adhere to. Well-reasoned Christian sites do not.
Click to expand...
Again these sites are reviewing what the professional sites say, as you do. They are the same as you. Unless you submit your review for peer-review then your point is not valid.
 
rivrrat said:
We put makeup on my nephew. He likes to be done up just like his older sisters. I don't see what the issue is. Are we going to "make him gay" by doing so? :rofl


Oh, he wears pink shirts too. :shock:
Click to expand...

Well, you get my point, of separating between the outrageous "gays/gay pride people" and normal people who just happens to be gay.. In my opinion those "gay pride" people just ruins everything for normal people who just happens to be gay. Those people would be the main reason for me objecting to gay people in ANY scenario adopting children.

Otherwise I would support some gay couples adopting children under extreme circumstances where the other parents just arent fit to take care of them, if for example they are drug addics or something like that, and no straight couple is ready to take on the child.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Think of the children!!!

Its natural for children to grow up in a man/woman parenting relationship. And lately it has become more and more normal to grow up in a man or woman /semi relationship with parents. That has had some damaging effects...

Taking away the childrens right to grow up with man/women parents and putting them in the hands of something as unnatural as man/man or woman/woman parenting relationships WILL damage things much more than one parent /semi parentING relations have done.

Imagine the bitter child who had no choice and grew up with two gay men as parents, just because some liberals wanted to allow gay adoption. Shame.. Shame.. SHAME...


Think of the children...
Click to expand...

Whenever anyone seriously makes a "think of the children" argument, I know their side is full of **** and hysterical.
 
rivrrat said:
We put makeup on my nephew. He likes to be done up just like his older sisters. I don't see what the issue is. Are we going to "make him gay" by doing so? :rofl


Oh, he wears pink shirts too. :shock:
Click to expand...

I think this would be a great discusion to have on another thread. A friend's son wanted a princess birthday cake for his birthday so his grandma bought it for him and it caused a huge argument from everyone on whether it's appropriate to give a child something that isn't sex appropriate. Because according to lots of people it will make him gay but alot don't think so. In fact I am going to start a thread on this topic in the sex forum.



Now as far as this question "On average would straight couples make better parents then gay couples?"

I say no. Being straight does not make you a better parent. Being a good parent makes you a good parent, nothing else.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Well, you get my point, of separating between the outrageous "gays/gay pride people" and normal people who just happens to be gay.. In my opinion those "gay pride" people just ruins everything for normal people who just happens to be gay. Those people would be the main reason for me objecting to gay people in ANY scenario adopting children.
Click to expand...
Oh I completely agree. It's like those "Womyn Pride" people. Normal women are fine, but those ones that are outrageously and outspokenly proud of their gender, well... they ruin everything for normal people who just happen to be women. Those people would be the main reason for me objecting to women in ANY scenario adopting children.

OH! And all of those heterosexual pedophiles too. They completely degrade normal people who just happen to be hetero. I cannot in good conscience agree that heteros should be allowed to adopt due to the presence of those pedophiles lurking in their midst.

And OMG... Those religious nutjobs. Those people who just go to church and preach and preach and preach. They really give normal religious people a bad name and I think we should certainly ban all religious people from adopting due to their presence as well. I would have to object to any normal religious person adopting in ANY scenario because of those religious fanatics that ruin it for normal people.

Otherwise I would support some gay couples adopting children under extreme circumstances where the other parents just arent fit to take care of them, if for example they are drug addics or something like that, and no straight couple is ready to take on the child.
Click to expand...
Oh me too! If there aren't any non-heterosexuals or men or non-religious, or non-homosexual parents available, then we should certainly let women, the religious, the heteros, and the homos adopt. Agree. "Normal" heteros, "normal" religious people, "normal" women, and "normal" homos would be a far cry better than some coffee drinking religious female nutjob who is proud of who she is.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes : Why?

No : Why?
Click to expand...

I would say yes. On average yes.

I think gay couples would make great parents as well. Straight couples would provide children with perspectives and insight from both a man and a woman.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the child would be ignorant of these perspectives if they were to have gay parents.
 
rivrrat said:
Oh I completely agree. It's like those "Womyn Pride" people. Normal women are fine, but those ones that are outrageously and outspokenly proud of their gender, well... they ruin everything for normal people who just happen to be women. Those people would be the main reason for me objecting to women in ANY scenario adopting children.

OH! And all of those heterosexual pedophiles too. They completely degrade normal people who just happen to be hetero. I cannot in good conscience agree that heteros should be allowed to adopt due to the presence of those pedophiles lurking in their midst.

And OMG... Those religious nutjobs. Those people who just go to church and preach and preach and preach. They really give normal religious people a bad name and I think we should certainly ban all religious people from adopting due to their presence as well. I would have to object to any normal religious person adopting in ANY scenario because of those religious fanatics that ruin it for normal people.


Oh me too! If there aren't any non-heterosexuals or men or non-religious, or non-homosexual parents available, then we should certainly let women, the religious, the heteros, and the homos adopt. Agree. "Normal" heteros, "normal" religious people, "normal" women, and "normal" homos would be a far cry better than some coffee drinking religious female nutjob who is proud of who she is.
Click to expand...

Good thing we agree on such important issues. :roll:

Good things that you actually see the reality of what I am saying, and not just what you want to hear on order to reply in the fabulous way that you do. :roll:

Nice to see your respect for other peoples stands than your own. :roll:
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Good thing we agree on such important issues. :roll:

Good things that you actually see the reality of what I am saying, and not just what you want to hear on order to reply in the fabulous way that you do. :roll:

Nice to see your respect for other peoples stands than your own. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why should I respect someone elses opinion? Everyone has one, I don't respect anywhere near all of them.

and of course I see the reality of what you're saying. I quoted it directly, it was all there in black and white. Not really any other way of seeing it but in reality. ;)
 
rivrrat said:
Why should I respect someone elses opinion? Everyone has one, I don't respect anywhere near all of them.

and of course I see the reality of what you're saying. I quoted it directly, it was all there in black and white. Not really any other way of seeing it but in reality. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you did ridiculous comparisons..

Its ok that you find gay people and all they represent ok, its ok that you think outrageous gays/gay pride people to be the same as a normal behaving man who is gay. But I guess thats just a very liberal and simple view on the whole gay issue.

You dont think gay pride people are ruining it for normal gays? And the acceptance of the gay community? I would never trust a child for an extended period with any of those "gay pride" people.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Well, you did ridiculous comparisons..
Click to expand...
How are they ridiculous comparisons? Do those groups of bad people not exist?

Its ok that you find gay people and all they represent ok, its ok that you think outrageous gays/gay pride people to be the same as a normal behaving man who is gay. But I guess thats just a very liberal and simple view on the whole gay issue.

You dont think gay pride people are ruining it for normal gays? And the acceptance of the gay community? I would never trust a child for an extended period with any of those "gay pride" people.
Click to expand...

Don't you think those outspoken women ruin it for "normal" women? Don't you think those outspoken religious whackos ruin it for "normal" religious folks? Don't you think those heterosexual pedophiles ruin it for "normal" heterosexuals? Don't you think those heterosexual child abusers ruin it for "normal" heteros? I wouldn't want a child with any of those people, but that doesn't mean I think we should stop letting heteros, or religious people, or women adopt.

Hell, if it comes right down to it, I'd much rather see them ban the fanatically religious from adopting. They ruin it for all the "normal" people in the world period.

You throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Apparently you think that kids should be placed in good homes. As do I. The difference is, I don't care if that good home is a family of a woman and a man, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. ANY of those families have the potential of being bad families, of being bad parents. Not one of them more so than the other two. The point I am making is that there are crappy ass people of any sexual orientation or gender. We don't stop letting the good people adopt just because there are some bad ones out there. Which is a point that you seem unable to grasp.
 
This is not an "all sides being equal" thread...
This thread is not that logical and certainly not realistic.

The best parent is the best parent... period.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Well, you did ridiculous comparisons..

Its ok that you find gay people and all they represent ok, its ok that you think outrageous gays/gay pride people to be the same as a normal behaving man who is gay. But I guess thats just a very liberal and simple view on the whole gay issue.

You dont think gay pride people are ruining it for normal gays? And the acceptance of the gay community? I would never trust a child for an extended period with any of those "gay pride" people.
Click to expand...

I think she did pretty good comparissions myself. You took an extreme group and used it as a reason not to let homosexuals adopt children. She did the same to show you how rediculous your statement was.

Point being is that there are bad people in every group. But that should not disqualify the rest of the group that are not bad.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think she did pretty good comparissions myself. You took an extreme group and used it as a reason not to let homosexuals adopt children. She did the same to show you how rediculous your statement was.

Point being is that there are bad people in every group. But that should not disqualify the rest of the group that are not bad.
Click to expand...

Good point. But my statement is not ridiculous in a discussion about gay couples adopting.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Good point. But my statement is not ridiculous in a discussion about gay couples adopting.
Click to expand...

Using it as a point to try to deny gay couples the right to adopt when the same point can be used for heterosexual couples when you support heterosexual couples adopting is what makes it a rediculous statement. And if it don't then it definately makes it a hypocritical statement. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Using it as a point to try to deny gay couples the right to adopt when the same point can be used for heterosexual couples when you support heterosexual couples adopting is what makes it a rediculous statement. And if it don't then it definately makes it a hypocritical statement. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't support drug addicted straight couples adopting...
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I don't support drug addicted straight couples adopting...
Click to expand...

But you do support 'normal' heterosexuals adopting. Do you support 'normal' gays adopting? If you already answered this in the positive then I apologize. I must of missed it.

Edited to add the word "positive".
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
But you do support 'normal' heterosexuals adopting. Do you support 'normal' gays adopting? If you already answered this in the positive then I apologize. I must of missed it.

Edited to add the word "positive".
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I don't think it would be good or natural for the child to grow up with two dads or two moms since its not the children choice. I know its not the children's choice to grow up with a mom and dad, but thats just the way it has always been. Its not fair for society out of accommodating everyone that we should decide on behalf of unborn children that they can grow up with gay parents. So no. But I would rather see a child with "normal" gay parents, than drug addicted straight people for example, I think they would be better parents, but I don't support it.
But then again, its not realistic at all to ban all bad parents from having children, but we do not need to add two men, or two women to the parenting list and make it worse.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
No, I don't. I don't think it would be good or natural for the child to grow up with two dads or two moms since its not the children choice. I know its not the children's choice to grow up with a mom and dad, but thats just the way it has always been. Its not fair for society out of accommodating everyone that we should decide on behalf of unborn children that they can grow up with gay parents. So no. But I would rather see a child with "normal" gay parents, than drug addicted straight people for example, I think they would be better parents, but I don't support it.
But then again, its not realistic at all to ban all bad parents from having children, but we do not need to add two men, or two women to the parenting list and make it worse.
Click to expand...

Ah tradition over everything else then?

Edit note: I really need to start remembering to do everything I want to do in a post. :p
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ah tradition over everything else then?

Edit note: I really need to start remembering to do everything I want to do in a post. :p
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In reality I just and ONLY support the best solutions. But in many cases those just arent possible and viable, so I have to not support worse solutions than those we have.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Not necessarily. In reality I just and ONLY support the best solutions. But in many cases those just arent possible and viable, so I have to not support worse solutions than those we have.
Click to expand...
Given your previous post I don't think "best solution" is the right description. You seem to be in favor of if because it is the "traditional" solution.

Unless of course you have evidence that suggests a child raised with heterosexual parents is raised more efficiently then one raised with homosexual parents.

So far from what I have seen from those that are pro-heterosexual parents is that it is the tradition, thus it must be better.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Not necessarily. In reality I just and ONLY support the best solutions. But in many cases those just arent possible and viable, so I have to not support worse solutions than those we have.
Click to expand...

Gibberish said:
Given your previous post I don't think "best solution" is the right description. You seem to be in favor of if because it is the "traditional" solution.

Unless of course you have evidence that suggests a child raised with heterosexual parents is raised more efficiently then one raised with homosexual parents.

So far from what I have seen from those that are pro-heterosexual parents is that it is the tradition, thus it must be better.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Gibberish on this one. You have no actual proof that heterosexual couples are better at raising kids than homosexual couples. CC has given plenty of links that show that homosexual families are just as good as heterosexual families. Even I have given some links that show this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom