# PEACEFUL debate/response, anyone? Homosexual parents, heterosexual parents



## TerciopeladoCaballo (May 27, 2012)

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

Read and respond. Be honest, if it's tl;dr, please say so to let the rest of us know you didn't read all of it.

Before giving your opinion about the ****-hetero debate, please treat both sides with respect, do not insult anyone, and please cite any references you have.

This isn't about right-vs-wrong or religion-vs-religion, *just the parenting*, and how you respond to this article.

*Keep the mention of politics and hate crime to a minimum. We're all well aware of those subjects.*

Be specific! Don't be general.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Not going into debates I only want to say that despite all disadvantages they discuss in an article I'd much rather see a child to live with loving, caring homosexual parents with no bad habits then in a family of drunks or abusers.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Why doesn't the OP give us his/her opinions? It always amuses me to see someone start a hot button topic, yet not putting forth their own opinions. You first, OP.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Go, Go, Go...Go, Go, Speed Racer...


----------



## TerciopeladoCaballo (May 27, 2012)

Speed Racer said:


> Why doesn't the OP give us his/her opinions? It always amuses me to see someone start a hot button topic, yet not putting forth their own opinions. You first, OP.


I didn't know you wanted it. It's nice not to use sarcasm or be haughty, please 

I did not put it first because I did not want anyone focusing on my opinion rather than the article.

I am an avid bioscience geek, so most of what I affirm is what I work out in the bio ethic department and personal experiences with particular people, and I am *not* a generalized thinker, I think in specifics first.

For me, I have found that the best household a child can grow up in is one with both his/her biological parents--- regardless of orientation. Even if the child is raised with a non-blood related relative, the child can still have a benefit if she/he lives close to her/his biological family. There is a kind of identity verification where one can relate to their surroundings on a biological level. When I look at animal behavior in front of me and the studies on that, I find almost all animals need to be raised with or at least see/smell/hear their own species/subspecies to independently meet their advanced needs, as you will find that all animals know how to perform a specific behavior such as the killing blow, predatory chasing, and the act of intercourse, but they need to direct these behaviors appropriately. I haven't seen one open case of humans hand-raising an animal without its species produce an adult animal that can fully function appropriately in its native habitat--- one important instance comes to mind with an African Gray parrot that refused to mate with others of its species in favor of courting his female owner. My own experience with animal's identity confusion is with a dove named "Digi", Digi was hand-raised, and refused to migrate or interact with his species, instead constantly courting a chicken hen. 


I'm guessing you either have been snapped at too many times and have a bitter outlook/defense, Speed, or you are seeking to put people down rather than debate? I hope not, that isn't productive. Something prevents you from offering your own opinion with a calm attitude. I expect a snarky reply, then; prove that expectation wrong, if you will.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Sorry, TC, this is a very controversial topic, and we have enough arguments over form and function here as it is.
I guess that I'm surprised that one of your first posts isn't, "Please tell me what you think of my horse?", with accompanying pictures.


----------



## TerciopeladoCaballo (May 27, 2012)

X

Repost


----------



## TerciopeladoCaballo (May 27, 2012)

Corporal said:


> Sorry, TC, this is a very controversial topic, and we have enough arguments over form and function here as it is.
> If you are LOOKING for an argument, I suggest Facebook.


Awh... I thought things were rather tolerable here. FB is a killer, what with the ability to create hate pages and whatnot.
I look around for intelligent people and calm places to bring my debates to. I know I won't learn much of anything unless I put myself in places that are uncomfortable; I go to small boards with people strictly against a view or belief I have to help give myself a widespread understanding. I can't imagine living a life happily not knowing what the other side of a fence represents. The annoying thing is that most people with opposing views or opinions to mine are, well, not pleasant in conversation, and I end up hearing the same things repeatedly, often dripping with negative and close-minded themes.

Hmm... I will acknowledge that perhaps I am looking for peace where none exists... Which is a little disappointing, but I can accept that if I must.

If you know of any solid debate sites/places/etc., let me know


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Speed Racer said:


> Why doesn't the OP give us his/her opinions? It always amuses me to see someone start a hot button topic, yet not putting forth their own opinions. You first, OP.


Well, actually I have started topics and not given my thoughts right away... I guess I am strange too :lol::lol:

.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

NOT gonna get my opinion on this. DH is an atty, and he makes ppl pay for arguments.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

First, This is a "research article" done by a faith biased group... Notorious for not liking things like homosexuality and abortion. You can skew ANY research to look the way you want to, especially if your trying to publish it for a political reason, in this case knocking homosexuality. 

Through the research I've done for school there are several advantages to raising a child in a homosexual house hold, including increased tolerance toward others. 

They keep saying "married biological family"... really how many people have that now a days? 

As for "deviating from the sexual norm".... maybe because sexuality wasn't swept under the rug like it is in most families. Homosexuality isn't a topic being discussed in households regularly, though it is just becoming more popular in the media. What about fathers telling little boys to "man up" or scolding them for crying. Teens that feel that their parents would disown them for being homosexual. Now how does THAT have an effect on kids who might feel like they want to "Deviate from the sexual norm". 

Honestly, as a lesbian, this article infuriates me so much I can't continune to read at this point. My blood is boiling over the amount of utter crap this article is spewing.

What makes homosexuals any less qualified to raise children then heterosexual parents? God knows my heterosexual parents did a shoddy job and I came out pretty okay if I do say so myself!


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

I just wanted to pose some of these quotes right off their website, so you can see the kind of lens they are looking through 

Re human euthanasia. How is suffering out the end of your days with a terrible disease, struggle for every breath, in agonizing pain and sitting in your own feces a "life worth living". I see it ALL THE TIME in the hospital. These people are doped up beyond belief to relive the pain and suffering from your body SHUTTING DOWN. 
_"Disabling diseases and injuries, including those for which there is a terminal diagnosis, are tragic. However, there is no such thing as a life not worth living. Every life holds promise, even if disadvantaged by developmental disability, injury, disease, or advanced aging._"

Although abstinence is pretty ideal who in this day in age practices it? No one. Teens have sex. There are a small handful that don't. To me I'd rather make my kids "safe" by teaching them about sex then "ignorant" by saying don't do it. 
_"FRC supports healthy marriage and family formation education to youth in conjunction with abstinence until marriage education."

_Their view on homosexuality.. I'm pretty sure I've been gay my whole life and "out" for about half of it. Besides bullying (from people like this) I don't see how homosexuality is harmful. Hasn't harmed me yet...
_"Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects".

_Don't like abortion?... don't get one. 
_"Family Research Council believes that abortion, far from empowering women, is a destructive force in women's lives"._


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

TerciopeladoCaballo said:


> I didn't know you wanted it. It's nice not to use sarcasm or be haughty, please
> 
> I did not put it first because I did not want anyone focusing on my opinion rather than the article.
> 
> ...



I totally see your point on animals need their own kind learn the "laws" of being that animal. But we are talking about humans being raised with humans, not by dogs or horses. Most animals are not raised by animals opposite genders and certain my not by two parents either. You can argue that boys won't learn boy things and girls won't learn girl things. But who says women aren't into sports? That men can't braid hair or pick out a dress? What exactly is it that people think kids are missing out on? Single parents raise kids of opposite ALL THE TIME with no help from the opposite sex. Should that be illegal too?


----------



## aliliz (Dec 24, 2012)

I agree with a lot of what SlideStop posted in her first post. To me, this article/study seemed like it was trying to make something out of nothing and was looking for differences to highlight. This first thing that caught my attention was that, when listing their summaries of past debates about this, they used the term "pro-family organizations". That implied, at least to me, that the person writing this article seems to believe that two parents of the same sex are not a family. Why are "family" and "gay" mutually exclusive to this author?

They made a big deal over the number of participants... I don't find their participant pool particularly impressive. Also, they say "Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father." I don't think that a same-sex relationship while they were growing up is the same as a family who's mother and father have stayed together throughout the childhood. They could easily have gathered the information from some people who's mothers or fathers had a number of relationships, of which one or more were with someone of the same sex. In order for this study to accurately compare children of same-sex and opposite-sex parenting, I think they need to have the same levels of commitment for the parents. So not a same-sex relationship while growing up, but two moms or two dads that were together for the same duration of the child's life as opposite sex parents.

I would like to have seen the "outcome measures", instead of just hearing about some that seem to make the biggest impact. In terms of the aspects of the results about psychological things, such as depression, "negative impact" and "less safety and security", how much of that is a result of our culture? Isn't it likely that the culture of homophobia in our society contributed to these feelings about same-sex couples?

As a brief note about the section on the children's sexuality, I'm not surprised that there are more children of same-sex parents who have had same sex partners. This isn't because I think gay parents influence their children to be gay, I think it's because children who grow up in same sex households are more willing to consider the possibility of being gay and are more comfortable exploring their sexuality. It's not that having gay parents makes you gay, it's that having gay parents makes you more open.

All in all, this "study" made me angry. I felt as if the people running the study and writing the article did everything they could to make a point about gay parents being worse at raising children. However, I didn't find anything that stood out as fact in the article. And, the idea of science is not to do a study that "tops previous research", it's to gather data that adds to data that has already been gathered. Having the results of this study doesn't throw all past studies out the window.


Edited to add:
I just explored the website that posted this article a bit. It is rather shocking; just click on "homosexuality", read what they wrote and take a look at some of the article titles. These are clearly not unbiased people... how is anyone supposed to believe a study that was run by a group that clearly places themselves firmly on one side of the argument?


----------



## Shropshirerosie (Jan 24, 2012)

I think that it's possible to create a scientific study on a topic such as this that "proves" pretty much any point of view you want to see. So I stick firmly to my own opinion that is formed by living in this world for 43 years and viewing family groups of all shapes and types, and meeting and mixing with people of all sexual persuasions.

I firmly believe that a child will grow up best in a loving and stable homelife (both emotionally and financially). Whether the adult(s) that run that home life are single, a couple, a collective, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is not of direct relevance to the happiness and well being of the child.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I did not finish reading the atricle.It clothed itself in the appearance of being "scientific" and "unbiased". HOwever, the more you read, the more the true agenda started being obvious. IT was working very hard to prove a number of biased steroetypes that I really don't agree with.

My oldest sister is gay. A more caring and loving person would be hard to find. ONe of my favorite adult students is gay and has been in an almost 15 year relationship with her partner (better than many heteros). She has produced a daught and a son within this partnership. These two kids are the most well adjusted, intelligent and open minded kids I know. They are a true delight to be around. NEither is being "indoctrinated" into any sexual identity and will be allowed to make the choices they see fit. BOth appear perfectly "normal".

Studies like this have an agenda. And. One I find very destructive.


----------



## WSArabians (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't see any reason whatsoever why sexuality should affect someone's parenting skills. 
Drug addicts? Yes. 
Abusers? Yes.
Criminals? Yes.
Loving someone? No.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

This is why I don't care to think too much about the sexual orientation of people, nor their political or religious stance.......

I sit on the fence and continue to be a great big sinner.....and I like it that way


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

Corporal said:


> NOT gonna get my opinion on this. DH is an atty, and he makes ppl pay for arguments.


Chicken :wink:

Well, I'm Irish and as a nationality we tend to be pretty free with offering our opinions.

What do you care what that group thinks? They are entitled to their opinions just as are any religious group. You're not likely to change them. Their not likely to change you.

They aren't the "VOICE" of Christians in America, they are just a special interest group, raising money like any other. That's what special interest groups do. They all preach to their own choir and get money.

Just like a global warming group or a save the black tailed prairie dog bunch.


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

I really can't stand pseudo-scientific articles...articles with an AGENDA masquerading as science! Blah....science is about discovery, you can't fall so in love with your hypothesis that you're willing to throw away all contrary evidence...

Anyway...
I don't understand why people are so hung up on "traditional family" anything. I especially loved the argument one of my Jr. High friends put on Facebook a few years ago..."You don't see animals in the zoo having homosexual relationships!" she said.

Um...actually....I responded and she didn't like my response too much lol. Research before you spew, please!

Gender roles, religious ZEALOTS (not religious PERSONS), and politics are all ways to control us, browbeat us into some sort of cohesive, mainstream role. Does it really hurt anyone if Mr. and Mr. Smith raise a baby? No.... Does it somehow corrupt YOUR (I use "your" loosely here) marriage/relationship/family values if this gay couple raise kids? Um...no, not unless you were on shaky moral grounds as it is, and in that case, it's all YOUR problem, and no one elses. People need to stop projecting and just be open minded, TOLERANT and caring of their neighbors.

After all, isn't being a good human being what almost all religions are about, deep down?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

That is no scientific study. To claim to be it would take thousands of people and many years to complete.
A child deserves a loving home with parents that love care and are INVOLVED in their day to day lives.
Most studies have shown that children raised in same sex households do as well as those of traditional families.
A child doesnt care who you have sex with just that you care for and love them. That fund raising attempt masquerading as a scientific study is useless. Not one bit of factual evidence to support its claim. Shalom


----------



## aliliz (Dec 24, 2012)

If anyone is interested in seeing counter arguments, take a look at this site.

Home - NLLFS - National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Considering that there are many examples of children from what we consider to be 'normal' households that are abused, neglected, unloved, even sexually abused by a father/adopted father that surely the emphasis has to be on a loving stable relationship that puts the needs and the rights of the children first and I believe that loving homosexual couples can do that just as well as anyone else.
Might be wise to remember that its actually in our recent history that homosexuality even became legal and many men and women of that 'orientation' opted into 'normal' marriages so that they could be fathers and mothers and look respectable and I'd say that most of them made as good a job of it as anyone else.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

TerciopeladoCaballo said:


> I didn't know you wanted it. It's nice not to use sarcasm or be haughty, please
> 
> I'm guessing you either have been snapped at too many times and have a bitter outlook/defense, Speed, or you are seeking to put people down rather than debate? I hope not, that isn't productive. Something prevents you from offering your own opinion with a calm attitude. I expect a snarky reply, then; prove that expectation wrong, if you will.


Nice psychobabble there, Tercio. Exactly what I expected. If you don't have a good answer, insult the the questioner.

I asked you to provide your opinions first, since you started the topic. How does that make me bitter, haughty, sarcastic, or put you down?

I believe if someone starts a controversial topic, they're honor bound to give their opinions _first_. That way it really _is_ a debate, and not just the OP sitting back watching other people give their opinions. I'm not bitter, I'm merely jaded at people who believe they're so much more intelligent than the rabble at whom they're pontificating.

I read the article. It wasn't anything more than hate-mongering by 'good' Christians, and their 'facts' and 'statistics' were so badly skewed as to be total nonsense. It also insulted a good many individuals, not just homosexual couples. Single mothers got quite a hit, too.  Funny, I've known more than a few people raised by single mothers who turned out to be fantastic human beings and decent, hardworking, contributing members of society. I imagine children raised by same sex parents in a committed, loving relationship have the chance to turn out the same way.

Groups who use 'statistics' to promote their hate filled agendas aren't new, but I can't believe any rational, intelligent adult who can think for themselves would give any credence to this ridiculous 'study'.


----------



## enh817 (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm so proud to be a part of this community!! 
As I began reading through this thread, I got progressively more frustrated and angry to the point that I was going to have to post a response. But as I came to the posts where the community started sharing their opinions, I found that you all have said everything I felt the need to say and more. You guys rock!


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Most of us are rather open minded and dare I say, somewhat liberal in our thinking, enh. :wink:

There's a reason that although I consider myself Christian, I refuse to adhere to any one particular denomination or religious group. Christ had wonderful ideas and a loving doctrine, but unfortunately His followers have twisted them to fit their hateful, abhorrent ideas of what's _supposed_ to be normal and good.

I imagine the majority of intelligent people are organized religion's worst nightmare; free thinking!


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Hmmmmmm......where is the OP now that we are not 'biting'?


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I guess I am strange too :lol::lol:


That's always been a given, ST. :wink:


----------



## blush (Feb 10, 2007)

This "study" is BS.

It's posted by a church group, on a *RELIGIOUS* website with NO viable sources to back up their ridiculous claims. A slight hint of bias anyone?


----------



## TerciopeladoCaballo (May 27, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> Hmmmmmm......where is the OP now that we are not 'biting'?


 
Here I am.

Can't expect me to be online every day, that would be derogatory.

I was being analytical of the learning/parenting process. Doesn't matter to me where the articles come from as long as the tests are legit; on such political issues, at least in my personal experience, I can't find thorough articles that are not related somehow to a religious group (including atheists/agnostics) or a political group. The article itself that portrays the data is limited to public view, this was the only site I could find that had a large portion of the studies online. That was my attempt to be fair; I was a bit hopeful of people to ignore any external factors.

So for being picky about people being raised by other people; now, I do not mean to discriminate strictly based on ethnic groups, but it is seen worldwide that people of the same culture or religion will gather together. Putting aside any thought of conspiracy, I would think this is a large factor in why you can see, essentially in early American history, groups of people from the same nationality forming their own towns inside a larger group. America is interesting (I am Austrian-Irish) as it shows a kind of diversity, yet separation at the same time, as you will travel throughout some parts of a state and find neighborhoods with Cherokes living close to each other, Italians living close to each other, so on so forth, though all will identify as Americans. Still, my point is that people of close biological traits tend to relate easily and soothed in the company of their groups. Interestingly, there is no 'race gene' that says "You are Italian," but there are traits that will occur frequently in certain places of the globe, which is majorly just natural selection over time.
I mean to say that birds of a feather flock together, colts learn to snake mares by watching stallions, and mares learn to mother by watching other mares; advanced needs are less complicated that way. For example, a woman of major Egyptian descent looks quite different than a woman of Norwegian descent. Giving to people's inclination to consider encounters at face value strictly, a person of Japanese descent won't know the difference between a man or woman of the bloodlines--- if you look only at the face of many different people worldwide, it can be difficult to figure out the gender and age. To a person outside those bloodlines, all they can go by is the person's word of mouth to identify their age, gender, and nationality when they have not seen people of those categories. So, now nobody really knows what a man or woman looks like, and clothes aren't much of a help as outfits vary widely.

The ability to identify our own members of the same species is detoriating--- and when you think about it, our ability to recognize subtle facial expressions and vocal intonations is as well thanks to electronic communications. I don't quite see such an appeal on announcing yourself to strictly relate romantically to one gender, or rather, the traits of that gender, because you _do _have masculine women of all orientations and the reverse as well. I don't think it's the gender that people are focusing on deeply, but the traits they believe are associated (for example, five gays I have met over the course of three months only engaged in relationships with men with at least three obvious traits in common such as face shape and body build). That there is an observation, though, nothing to really go off solely, as you do have preferences, but on several occassions when I introduced a gay friend to women with broad shoulders, he stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women instead. I can say of that, at a minimum, he was pleased with their bodily appearance.

So with parenting, I would want parents to raise a child in a widespread education. Of course in the situation of a child being dragged through a murky broken home or being re-homed to a person with a steady job and lifestyle who happens to be ****, the child goes to the homosexual. No group is immune from the same problems. If there's a person of sound mind, go ahead, I just wouldn't put a child from a broken home in a household where the parents are biased, whatever their lifestyle and belief is. Anybody who has had a shelter Pit Bull from a dogfighting past knows that the dog does not go to someone who will only pour love and kisses on it. Love and kisses do not keep the dog from ripping apart living beings, it is hard for me to hear someone say "as long as you love me/him/her/them," because you can love someone with all your heart, but being with you might not be best for that person. It takes more than love to raise a child, dog, cat, horse, et cetera. There are plenty of situations where people are in poverty trying to care for their children. If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better. Then there are the times where mothers have thrown their children off cliffs and dove in with them to avoid the shame of surrendering to the enemy nation, but, that's the darker side of this point.



I skimmed the reply posts a bit, they don't look too nasty, I didn't catch anyone gnawing on each other's throats. Strong topic = strong emotions.


Speed; spectacular debacle. I haven't heard "psychobabble" in a while, not since Wedding Crashers. I can't tell exactly what you were remarking on, whether it was my meaning or my word choice.

Well, I'll take a tiny step. You are helping me with analyzing practice, thank you, though I wanted to stay on topic.

There is more than one definition of "bitter"; I meant "unpleasant to reception". That's a matter of tone and diction; you were so serious, I believed you could choose another theme of diction. I apologize for this mistake, it's hard to decipher meanings from colloquialisms. Usually it is appropriate to gently state an opinion of a hot topic. It is also appropriate to slap a smiley face on the end of it when using the internet, for lack of a face.

Sadly you did not prove me wrong. I praise you for paragraph spacings though, your generous sharing of commas and verbals were customary but relevant to your own points. More of a descriptive anecdote and a bit of explanation to the use of harsh words such as "hate" would improve the structure. Overall it was skeletal, I suggest to weigh future remarks with irrefutable claims and citations next time.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

TerciopeladoCaballo said:


> Here I am.
> 
> Can't expect me to be online every day, that would be derogatory.
> 
> ...


No offense intended, but I always get a chuckle when someone that authors a post like yours criticizes someone else's structure, syntax, and punctuation. If I could spare the lengthy time it would take to edit your post, the result would be more red than black. We write in informal conversational style here, which is appropriate for this venue...it is also much easier to read then a failed bush league attempt to appear educated...again - no offense intended...


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

TerciopeladoCaballo said:


> Here I am.
> 
> Can't expect me to be online every day, that would be derogatory.
> 
> ...


Obviously my remarks are in bold red.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Here is some interesting material published by the APA, a NON BIAS organization that is running off _facts_ not _faith_. It's not an article (actually I'm not 100% sure what you would call it), but it looks like facts on why the Ohio Psychological Association found homosexual up to par with heterosexuals. *It even mentions that homosexuals might be superior parent-ers to children!*

Resolution adopted by the Ohio Psychological Association on sexual orientation, parents, and children

Right from the material: 

_"Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."_


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

I'll be honest, I love to read a good debate. I'm not going to go over my qualifications, or education, I'll just note a few things.

Who in their right mind takes the time to cite (at least more than once) a post on the internet? My god, you'd better be paying me, giving me a grade, or seriously have ****ed me off. I've done so in threads regarding Evolution versus someone who completely denigrated science...but I don't see a problem with Speed Racer not doing it here. She and I may not always agree, but I'll back her up on that. What was she going to cite, after all? lol I don't disagree that she tends to snap a bit...we all have done so. Though I do praise you for noting her good use of grammar and punctuation. Not everyone takes the time to utilize it, or notice when someone is skilled in doing it. 

Now...about the rest of your post. I don't know where to start. I do not agree with natural selection being the driving force behind "ethnicities". Microevolution at its finest is behind the "look" of our "races". It certainly isn't the case that they had a party at the Bering Strait, and said "Hey, you, you and you are darker tan and have silky asian hair, but no folds...you cross the straight. You look blond, you go that way with the other blondes with blue eyes...". =/ And furthermore, I'm assuming that though you have been to America, maybe you were caught up in visiting and did not notice, depending on where you were, the true diversity of our melting pot. Though there are many places where the interracial marriage is not so common, I'm from California. I am descendant of four races. My daughter is from eight. My husband is a newly made American citizen, born in Mexico. He is also a Christian, to my very strong belief in Atheism and a hint of Buddhism. My kids (of mixed heritage) can decide on religion when they're ready. Furthermore, I'm told I'm pansexual...my husband is straight. I don't see how my sexuality even remotely impacts my kids, and honestly I can't even see them asking about it? lol. Furthermore, they can decide on that as they get older too.

Oh and if you think that every parent (not saying you do) in a poverty situation will send their kids to an expensive boarding school, away from them to become indoctrinated, even for a chance at better education....you haven't talked to enough people. xD

I wanted to inquire as to whether English is your first language. I note that there is some difficulty/awkwardness in phrasing, and that made it somewhat difficult to follow (though that may have also been the toddler "playing" in the background). I have fantastic reading comprehension, and I am not trying to insult you, but I thought you may like to know that it wasn't super easy to follow and see what you were getting at.


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

> . Really, where are you from. As a member of a LARGE gay community I can tell you that if your experience are correct for everyone there would be no gay people left on Long Island and NYC. I've been to every gay/lesbian bar from NYC to Montauk. Both genders gather frequently and if that actually worked then there would be no more gay people left. We would have all "stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women/men instead". *Liking someone is not biased on body type. It's biased on emotional connection*. I am emotionally and physically attracted to women. Plain and simple. I've been around the more feminine men and never not ONCE have ever entertained the idea of being attracted to them. Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals can attracted to someone who is "rougher" or "softer" then them, it has nothing to do with gender as both genders can be "rougher" or "softer"


If that were so, then the physical gender of the individual would not be a factor.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Way to go Faceman I agree 100%.
i am an educated man and did not quite understand most of the OPs reply or how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.
There is NO evidence that same sex parents are inferior to traditional ones. NONE. Quite the opposite has been proven in study after study. Shalom


----------



## Shropshirerosie (Jan 24, 2012)

_ If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better. 

_

Wow, OP your reply was long, detailed, mainly off-topic I think, and I could seize any part of it to have a friendly debate on. But I'll stick with this bit - on what planet are you living where you think that "poor people" will give up their children easily in favour of a rich and privileged education?! I don't think I know ANY parent that would "give their children up" willingly. A parent who sends their child away from a war zone, or from other social ills does so to protect them and does so with agony. Every Time. 

People who do send their children to boarding schools do so for many reasons, but not to give them up. 

Oh, and while I'm at it - in what part of history do mothers and children dive off cliffs? And WHAT does this have to do with homosexual parenting?


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

demonwolfmoon said:


> If that were so, then the physical gender of the individual would not be a factor.


I ment to say emotionally and physically, the next sentence says it. Also by "body type" I was referring to the person, male or females, degree of femininity or masculinity. The OPs argument is pretty much give a lesbian a feminine man or give a gay man a masculine women and problem solved. Yeah, I've never ever seen that become true, nor is the stereotype "***** women like femme girls" and visa versa for "type" and gender.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Wall of text, and much of it completely irrelevant to the topic. Typical bloviating obfuscation intended to throw attention away from the actual discussion and onto the OP.

I find the OP's opinions on the actual topic puzzling, considering that she claims to be 17 y/o and still living at home with a completely dysfunctional family. Her pronouncements of being the only normal member of the family and being the glue that holds everyone together seem eerily reminiscent of another poster who has been banned for her lies and wild flights of fancy. The grammar, syntax and walls of text also appear to be similar, if not downright exact.

OP is obviously intelligent, but appears to have a sad need to be right in every and all situations. Those traits are not desirable when one is looking to debate, but they're certainly endemic to those who wish to appear superior to their fellows.

I'd say her character flaws are most likely related to her horrific upbringing, and she would have been better off had she been brought up by loving, same sex parents than the mismatched, damaged biological ones who actually raised her. A mentally healthy single parent would have also been preferable to a mentally ill pair.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Speed Racer said:


> Wall of text, and much of it completely irrelevant to the topic. Typical bloviating obfuscation intended to throw attention away from the actual discussion and onto the OP.


Haha...sounds af if you have been watching O'Reilly...:rofl:


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, I figured if the OP could deviate from the topic and throw in some pseudo-psychological blathering, it must be appropriate for the rest of us do to the same.

I love the term bloviating obfuscation but don't get to use it much. I was so very pleased it could be used in this context. :wink:


----------



## cmarie (Dec 19, 2011)

I have to ask this: What is a "traditional family" these days. There seem to be more "blended families", single parent, and grandparents/family members raising kids these days than traditional ones.


----------



## demonwolfmoon (Oct 31, 2011)

Speed Racer said:


> Wall of text, and much of it completely irrelevant to the topic. Typical bloviating obfuscation intended to throw attention away from the actual discussion and onto the OP.
> 
> I find the OP's opinions on the actual topic puzzling, considering that she claims to be 17 y/o and still living at home with a completely dysfunctional family. Her pronouncements of being the only normal member of the family and being the glue that holds everyone together seem eerily reminiscent of another poster who has been banned for her lies and wild flights of fancy. The grammar, syntax and walls of text also appear to be similar, if not downright exact.
> 
> ...


Speed, does it make me a bad person that I snickered?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I use the term traditional to apply to those families headed by a heterosexual. It IMO encompasses one parent househould and children raised by nonbiological step parents as well. 
it beats typing out Homosexual and Heterosexual every time you post something.
Just a term not meaning to imply that is preferred . Shalom


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

demonwolfmoon said:


> Speed, does it make me a bad person that I snickered?


Yes, yes it does. This is TOTES serious psychoanalysis! :evil:

Never mind that I have_ no_ training or advanced education in the subject. But then, neither does the OP, so I guess we're on an even playing field. :wink:


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Speed Racer said:


> Yes, yes it does. This is TOTES serious psychoanalysis! :evil:
> 
> Never mind that I have_ no_ training or advanced education in the subject. But then, neither does the OP, so I guess we're on an even playing field. :wink:


Aw come on...look at db. He has training and he's all screwed up...obviously training doesn't mean much...


----------



## nvr2many (Jan 18, 2011)

fftopic:........................:hide:

:lol:


----------



## cmarie (Dec 19, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> I use the term traditional to apply to those families headed by a heterosexual. It IMO encompasses one parent househould and children raised by nonbiological step parents as well.
> it beats typing out Homosexual and Heterosexual every time you post something.
> Just a term not meaning to imply that is preferred . Shalom


To me a traditional family is the biological parents and children, not blended, single, or other family raising the children.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Gee I don't know about all this, but the OP has given a wall of text twice I believe and has worn out her thesaurus in the process.

I'd really like to know what the true angle of the OPs original thread was....I suspect I know but would be nice to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> Gee I don't know about all this, but the OP has given a wall of text twice I believe and has worn out her thesaurus in the process.
> 
> I'd really like to know what the true angle of the OPs original thread was....I suspect I know but would be nice to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.


 I think in short the OP is opposed, reason being "members of a species need other members of the species", I guess what that is supposed to mean is that boys need Dads to show them how to scratch their nuts and enjoys sports. Obviously girls need mothers to learn to wear heels and do house work........ Something to that effect *eye roll*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

Other key point the OP made were... 

1. You cant rehab a fighting pitbull with love. 
2. You can become unhomosexual! Gay men date masculine women. Lesbians date feminine men! This is total news to me. 
3. We should be ignoring the publisher of the study
4. Apparently we also segregate ourselves according to race and religion. 

.... Is there a "WTH" face?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

cmarie said:


> To me a traditional family is the biological parents and children, not blended, single, or other family raising the children.


Amen. Societies change and circumstances often dictate alternatives, but a traditional family is what it is...a father and a mother. IMO the decline of the traditional family is part - certainly not all - of our society's problems...


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

People always forget to ask the kids in these studies. 

Kids want to be loved, to feel secure, to have stability. They do not care if it is two mommies or two daddies, or one mommy or one daddy. 

Children of homosexual parents are not effected by their own families. It is when they are old enough to go to school and kids start to _tell_ them they are different. Where do the kids get it from? Their parents. It is *society* that flaws these kid's families, not the parenting from within. 

It is just like a lesbian or a gay man. The biggest fear is what others think (society) of them, not what they feel about themselves.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

BaileyJo;1907589[B said:


> ]People always forget to ask the kids in these studies.
> [/B]
> Kids want to be loved, to feel secure, to have stability. They do not care if it is two mommies or two daddies, or one mommy or one daddy.
> 
> ...


Exactly!!! This is a wonderful speech by a wonderful son.....


----------

