ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — The presumption that children need both a mother and a father is widespread. It has been used by proponents of Proposition 8 to argue against same-sex marriage and to uphold a ban on same-sex adoption.
...
"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

The presumption that children need both a mother and a father is widespread. It has been used by proponents of Proposition 8 to argue against same-sex marriage and to uphold a ban on same-sex adoption.I guess that means single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise children either. :rolleyes:

The lengths that Christians will go to to dance around their bigotry, it borders on the amusing. If you follow the Proposition 8 trial, you'll see a string of expert bigots, all saying the same nonsense.

These guys (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=56122) are planning to come to San Francisco to protest Twitter, the court doing the Prop 8 trial, and more. At least they are open about their bigotry.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/scavenger/2010/01/27/mn-MINISTRY_OF_H_0495626751400x272.jpg

I know a girl who is doing quite well that was raised by an adopted family. In fact more than one on that subject. I know a guy raised by a single father who did quite well for himself. Tarzan did quite well for himself as well as many other fictional characters such as Mogli, but, the fate of the chick from my two dads a television show from the 80's is unclear, but, she was happy for the most part. I know a guy raised by crackheads who is doing quite well. As well as others such as single mothers who had children do well, reverse spectrum, families with seemingly every benefit afforded to their children, and their children considered themselves from a broken home.

This kind of reminds me of a South Park episode on the subject. Mr. Garrison was trying to prove that 2 males could not properly care for an egg, that would simulate a child. Suffice it to say but, the two guys took care of the egg.

You need only look to the most-watched television entertainment event to realize the level of Christian zealotry and bigotry in this country.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/NATL-CBS-Rejects-Gay-Dating-Sites-Super-Bowl-Ad-83144577.html?tsp=1CBS Rejects Gay Dating Site's Super Bowl Ad

CBS this week refused to air a Super Bowl ad made by a gay dating site, an announcement that came just days after news broke the network would air college football star Tim Tebow's Christian pro-life ad during the big game.

The Super Bowl network said it rejected Mancrunch.com's ad, which features two male football fans kissing on a couch while watching a game, because it failed to meet CBS' standards for commercial advertisements, Fox News reported Friday.

"We are very disappointed in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl," said a rep for Mancrunch.com, who called on "every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS."

Tebow's advertisement has itself been the subject of a media frenzy, causing advocacy groups to protest the controversial pro-life TV spot. The 30-second ad is expected to recount the story of Tim's mother, Pam Tebow, who defied doctors' recommendations to abort her fifth child -- the Heisman Trophy-winning Tim -- and instead gave birth while in the Philippines.

CBS defended its choice to air the Focus on the Family ad, saying it was setting a precedent for the network to accept more advocacy spots.

"We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," spokesman Dana McClintock said this week. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

CBS "will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV," McClintock said.Personally, I'd find a Christian anti-birth control propaganda ad far more offensive than a gay dating site ad.

You need only look to the most-watched television entertainment event to realize the level of Christian zealotry and bigotry in this country.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/NATL-CBS-Rejects-Gay-Dating-Sites-Super-Bowl-Ad-83144577.html?tsp=1Personally, I'd find a Christian anti-birth control propaganda ad far more offensive than a gay dating site ad.

I guess this does mean, though, that next time the Republicans or right winger Christians come up with the claim that 'the media are all left wing' people can point out to this example (and all those others) to show that their definition of 'left' is a bit different from the rest of the world.


arian
(Reading back, that sentence was almost German in its convolutedness ;) ))

I know a girl who is doing quite well that was raised by an adopted family. In fact more than one on that subject. I know a guy raised by a single father who did quite well for himself. Tarzan did quite well for himself as well as many other fictional characters such as Mogli, but, the fate of the chick from my two dads a television show from the 80's is unclear, but, she was happy for the most part. I know a guy raised by crackheads who is doing quite well. As well as others such as single mothers who had children do well, reverse spectrum, families with seemingly every benefit afforded to their children, and their children considered themselves from a broken home.


The argument of course is not factual, but merely constructed by those opposed to same sex marriages, to sound plausible to people who have not quite made up their mind and are unwilling or unable to look deeper into the truth of the matter.

It is good for children to have role models, and to a large extent the behaviour of adults around young children determines how they will react instinctively the rest of their lives.
The question therefor is not if a -man- should be present at that age, but -what roles do we want to present to our children-?

It can be argued (quite validly) that the 1950 and 1960 sitcom family model that these opponents think about when they talk about the 'standard family' is socially and psychologically unhealthy. Not just for girls but for boys as well as it denies the potential differences between individual children, and it limits interaction between men and women every bit as much as the Taleban wants for Pakistan and Afghanistan. It just does not back up the decree of 'this is what it means to be a woman and this is what it means to be a man' with the threat of horrible violence towards women.
A good example of how limiting this is comes from an interview with a movie director I read recently. She told how at the age of 12 she had to complete a sentence 'In ... years I am ... and I have ...'. She answered 'In ten years I am 22 and I have a job'. This was corrected into the 'proper' answer for girls: 'In 10 years I am married and I have children'. In the late 1950s this was the only ambition that was allowed for a girl. Similarly, a boy who did not have the ambition to have a job and provide an income for wife and children but instead wanted to stay home and care for his children was (and to a very large extent still is) considered abnormal and most likely would have been sent to a psychiatrist.

A father whose 'family role' is to be absent all day, to come back too tired to be bothered by the time the children have to go to bed and to be held as threat over misbehaving children is not providing any meaningful role model at all. If a child is raised by parents who show a loving relation towards each other and the child, and who are a reasonably adjusted part of society then the gender of those parents makes no difference.

But ... we are not going to convince those people who believe that the only possible pairing is man and woman, with man providing income and woman being his faithful slave who keeps the house clean, the children quiet and the meals cooked in time for her lord and master. As a society we will have to outgrow those throwbacks to the previous couple of centuries. Which will take a few generations.


Eri

Ya, have expressed many of the points of view on this subject similar in nature to Eri.

I find it silly myself as it has been proven time and time again, you do not neccessarily need a father figure nor a mother figure to be successful. Which success can be varying degrees, conditions, and standards.

The whole homosexual debate is just silly as well. I found it funny the other day with the state of the union address when Obama discussed this openly with the intent to allow Homosexuals and Bi sexuals to openly serve as members of the armed forces. The part that cracked me up, was afterwards there was this little thing with a couple of aides from the White House clarifying some things, I could tell they did not know much on the subject by the way they were talking about it. They were talking about orientation. Unfortunately for the aides, orientation has never really been a factor, the publications on the subject do not allow you to boot a person from service on mere orientation, so much as action.. The way the Uniformed Code of Miltiary action functions in regards to the sodomy laws they have available as well as the same sex clauses.

Which leads me to the superbowl ad for the gay dating site. Another silly thing. Which I would disagree with Tuda's view on an anti birth control, such much as an anti abortion message, which similar conditions have killed other women who refused abortions, as well as saved those who got the abortion during similar conditions. But, looking at the future 2nd-3rd round player in the NFL, unless Al Davis and the raiders do something crazy, with his homeschooling story and his mother who probably should have got the abortion, your kid can grow up and become a great college football player, if you do not get the abortion, also assuming you do not die.

The argument of course is not factual, but merely constructed by those opposed to same sex marriages, to sound plausible to people who have not quite made up their mind and are unwilling or unable to look deeper into the truth of the matter.It's a red herring actually, because the argument has a fatal logical flaw.

In a supposedly free country, there's a big difference between what's desirable, and what should be mandatory.

It's desirable to be lean and athletic, but even I wouldn't propose denying fat people basic rights.

So while I agree that a straight male father figure and a straight female mother figure (not necessarily "married") form the ideal family unit, from an instinctive/biological and sociological perspective, I disagree completely with the bigot Christians that such a unit should be a prerequisite to socially approved procreation.

And just by casually comparing children of gay couples in San Francisco to, say, children of bigoted white trash religious zealots in the South, you can see how non-ideal family units can still outperform so-called "ideal" ones.

I guess that means single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise children either.


Single parents rarely raise their children by themselves.

ajority of them rely on the rest of us to raise them, or at least pay for them, for them.

Can't feed em, don't breed em.

Humans who can't control their reproduction by their own will are no different than cats or dogs. It has been the feminization of our culture which coerces us to treat them any different.

And just wait until the first divorced gays have to pay alimony and spousal support.

That will be fun to watch.

Single parents rarely raise their children by themselves.

ajority of them rely on the rest of us to raise them, or at least pay for them, for them.That's true of dual parents too.

A rich gay couple in San Francisco with kids costs us far less than the typical redneck couple with kids.

I'm with you on the parental fitness test. But gays shouldn't automatically be excluded from that.

But gays shouldn't automatically be excluded from that.
Not at all.

When gays have children, it usually through rigorous intention. Usually with the means and intention of raising them, themselves.

When many heteros have children, it is only because they are no better than base rutting animals.


But, then again...
Is Octomom gay? With those DSLs would seem a waste. Just like all of the retarded children she's made. What a putrid culture we live it, eh?

I find it more interesting all the checks and procedures you have to go through to adopt a child than it is to have one. Which is also surprising especially since it is cheaper to pick up a child legally, particularly in in asia, and adopt through those methods rather than an american kid.

Nutters aside like the group trying to smuggle a bunch of haitian kids recently. The Cuban smuggling of baseball players attempt after the wrold classic was hilarious. That kind of stuff goes on as well, I have read some stories about particular places in South America, Thailand and stuff, where the locals are pretty untrusting of white people for kidnapping their kids and raising them abroad.

I came this close to adopting a Rwanda orphan.

The nutters 'kidnapping' Haitian orphans are not nutters.

If Haitian politicians want to prosecute people whose only goal is to find parents for these poor children...well they can go **** themselves.

I don't care if they ARE Christian. That is what good people do, regardless of their silly mythological beliefs.

Nutters aside like the group trying to smuggle a bunch of haitian kids recently. The Cuban smuggling of baseball players attempt after the wrold classic was hilarious. That kind of stuff goes on as well, I have read some stories about particular places in South America, Thailand and stuff, where the locals are pretty untrusting of white people for kidnapping their kids and raising them abroad.

Why was the first thing that came to mind after reading this Angelina Jolie?

quote"The nutters 'kidnapping' Haitian orphans are not nutters."

I could care less about adopting a Haitian kid. However, some of those kids do have parents and families. That would be a procedural error on their part failing to go through proper channels and got busted. Despite the media coverage potrayal, it is not completely unorganized, laws and order still function. If I decided that I was going to find families for a bunch of poor American kids in Mexico, and tried to take them out of the country without proper documentation would that be a problem? Religeous affilitation in this case is incidental.

quote"Why was the first thing that came to mind after reading this Angelina Jolie?"

Don't know but the thought did cross my mind when I wrote it jolie would probably do something like that.

I came this close to adopting a Rwanda orphan.

The nutters 'kidnapping' Haitian orphans are not nutters.

If Haitian politicians want to prosecute people whose only goal is to find parents for these poor children...well they can go **** themselves.

I don't care if they ARE Christian. That is what good people do, regardless of their silly mythological beliefs.All this time I was thinking you supported responsible breeding, and now you have to spoil it with this.

I'm disappointed.

quote"All this time I was thinking you supported responsible breeding, and now you have to spoil it with this.

I'm disappointed."

Depends Tuda on your defination on the subject. Adopting a kid from where ever is what I might call responsible breeding. Remember not all kids on the adoption block were from parents who could not care for their child or children. Also, keep in mind the large amount of population of children, or over population, on the planet, adding more children when you can adopt a child, if you should choose to. One might call that being responsible.

Many Haitians can't afford shoes, how do they afford birth control? Is Catholicism the dominant religion there?

Hmmm.... I could definitely see a place for a 501c charity to provide free birth control to poor countries. Can you imagine the ruckus from the religious charities?

All this time I was thinking you supported responsible breeding, and now you have to spoil it with this.

I'm disappointed.

We all know that you have no problem culling the existing human herd.

I just don't think that just being a Haitian child/orphan would be the criterion I would use for that culling. There are plenty other valid candidates to start with first.

Adopting a kid from where ever is what I might call responsible breeding.I just don't think that just being a Haitian child/orphan would be the criterion I would use for that culling. There are plenty other valid candidates to start with first.You two are missing the point entirely.

The Haitians are among the irresponsible breeders in the Western Hemisphere. (They would be global contenders, but we have Africa.) They are one of the poorest countries, and have one of the highest breeding rates.

Overbreeding carries dire consequences. The first is a destruction of the environment, followed by extreme poverty. From that flows disease, violence, famine, and war.

It is a classic pattern that nations throughout human history have followed, and Haiti is just another cookie cutter example. And in Haiti's case there is further proof if you look its neighboring nation, which is similarly situated but took a different path.

Haiti's current crisis is a direct result of their overbreeding. It is why they are shoveling tens of thousands of bodies into mass graves after a 7.0 earthquake, whereas when a 6.9 earthquake hit San Francisco we weren't digging any mass graves.

In fact, a disaster of some sort was inevitable. If it weren't for an earthquake, there would have been a plague, or maybe a civil war like Rwanda's recent one.

Now, when you adopt a kid from Haiti, either to assuage your rich white American guilt or to make other rich white Americans like you, you are directly supporting overbreeding. You are creating an additional export from Haiti other than mangoes and coffee. Not only do you make room for one more kid (to replace the one you took out), but you support the adoption industry, which supports more breeding.

In other words, you are making their situation worse, not better, by importing their offspring. It is just like giving them tons of food, so they can breed more, and be hungrier, and need even more food. It's a classic Malthusian dilemma.

If you truly cared about the welfare of people in Haiti, or Rwanda, or some other poor screwed up nation, you wouldn't be importing their babies, or sending them food. You would be empowering girls/young women to control their reproduction, and to aspire to become something better than just a baby factory. And NOT rewarding those who breed indiscriminately, by giving them money and free child care.

If you do this, other Americans won't necessarily like you. They might call you a Nazi, and Christians will certainly want to kill you. It also won't do much good at assuaging your American guilt. But it WILL help them, tremendously. Just look at South Korea as an example of what a nation can do when it decides to lift its people up, instead of just creating more of them.

Or you can keep writing the Haitians checks and importing their excess offspring. Which will require you to write even more checks, and import even more offspring. Until it gets to the point where you say, the hell with it, and Nature will take over. Just like it did in Rwanda, and I think you know what happened there. Your decision.

Many Haitians can't afford shoes, how do they afford birth control? Is Catholicism the dominant religion there?More importantly, Christianity is the dominant religion here. And since foreign aid makes up a large part of their GDP, and we make up a large part of that foreign aid, we control what happens.

Religious fanaticism on our part certainly is affecting the outcome.

I have less problems with sterilization and abortion than you probably do.

But my moral compass still says that aborting Haitian children after they are born because their parents are wanton rutting animals is kinda wrong.

Just a difference of opinion, I suppose.
And I suppose that we can just agree to disagree on the merits of post birth abortions, at this time. And leave it at that with no further debate.

But my moral compass still says that aborting Haitian children after they are born because their parents are wanton rutting animals is kinda wrong.Uh, what?

I wasn't suggesting forced infanticide.

I was merely suggesting that we stop doing all the things that are making it worse, and start doing things that will make it better.

If, as a consequence, they choose to commit infanticide to reduce their population, that's their business.

And since when have you had a moral compass?