New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad

Prove a "biological connection" exists between offspring and it's parents. Just having the same genes doesn't prove that there is a connection.

I suggest any connection is social.

You said "the ideal situation," I think you mean to say "generally the ideal situation," because there are many biological parents that abuse, molest, and even kill their own children. That alone proves it's not the ideal situation.

Sorry to be so persnickety But precision of language is very important to avoid detractors and derailment.

Anyway back to the argument.

Is it the ideal situation? Do children do better if they are raised not only by their parents but their grand parents as well and their aunts and uncles with their cousins? Of course granting that the adults care for the child and the children get along. Or is it ideal if the child is raised by a community?

I believe that th idea that the ideal is the nuclear family begs the question. People that promote the nuclear family of course state that it is the ideal, because they wish it to be. And or social structure requires it. But is it truly the ideal?

What is the bench mark? Education of the children, adjustment of the children, happiness, monetary gain? I would think there would be far too many variables to pin down one thing that contributes to that. But then again I'm a bit if an anti Freudian thinker.

 

You are entirely correct. Japanese can be and MUST be learned. Sexually orientation can NOT be learned.

And that is why the statistics show you to be completely dead flat WRONG. Unambiguously, no doubt about it wrong. I notice that you simply ignore the facts, and substitute a false analogy. As the old nursery proverb says, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. YOU are crawling, because your wishes are plain refuted by reality. Sexual orientation isn't like a language, it's like a skin color.

 

Where did I learn homosexuality from? I was raised by committed married heterosexuals, with my heterosexual siblings never was molested or
Engaged in sex as a child.

I don't negate the idea that it could be learned, or that environmental influences contribute to it. But the idea that parents control whether or not their children are homosexual is odd to me.

Do you subscribe to the Freudian castration concept?

 

Parthogenesis is asexual reproduction. Again not homosexuality.

Looks like we agree that exclusive homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality) is unnatural.

And isn't homosexual marriage all about exclusive homosexuality?

 

So your neighbors are representative of all divorced couples, or even a majority? Honestly your sounding like the Christian Fundamentalist I know who think divorce should be illegal. Watching a jackass beat his wives kids doesn't mean the majority of step fathers are abusive (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.Nor does it mean that most single parents no longer want their own children, therefor they do not care if their partner beats their children.

And I have a cousin who's step Father is the only person who he considers his own father. What's your point? I have an uncle who is adopted and has rejected all efforts to know about his biological family because they didn't want him. Again so what? We are talking in general terms here not individual.

Where are judges forcing couples to adopt children? If someone is choosing to take care of a family members child it's a conscious decision.

My argument is having a biological connection is just another element that brings a child closer to his parents. This was under the understanding that said biological connection wanted to be a parent of the child. Family pride and obligation is a real thing to multiple people.

Are you suggesting that people don't really mean they want to take care of these kids? Or are being forced to? Again who the hell is forcing Aunt/Uncles/Grandparents/Cousins/ Elder Siblings from adopting these kids? If they are saying yes they obviously are choosing to take care of the child. I know of no situation where a child was placed in the custody of someone who declared they would not take care of said child.

Are their nightmare stories? Of course we are dealing with mankind here, but I see no reason to believe that a person who chooses to adopt a family members offspring don't really want them anymore then some random stranger.

Sure, "a lot" do. If they choose to keep and raise the child though it's obviously a conscious decision.

Because you have an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) for a neighbor? I know step parents of kids who are great with them. I don't see where the majority of step fathers/step mothers are "bastards and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es" who don't know what they are getting into. Like I said I used to hear this argument all the time around the fundamentalist, its nonsense. There are good step parents out there, and many the divorce parent go the extra mile when looking for a new mate, with the idea in mind of not only finding someone who loves them, but who can be a father/mother with their children.

There have been nightmare adoption stories before. It isn't an absolute thing as you suggest. Yes by in large they are positive, but not universally so. We are dealing with mankind here.

The point is that we aren't dealing with people who are with their biological parents, nor are they with family members who want them I wasn't making a statement against you just a general true statement. People who are adopting kids are adopting kids who have no other options. They are a minority or a minority, we aren't dealing with ideal conditions from the start, therefor we aren't always able to take the best options. Often the best option available is what we must settle for in these situations.

This wasn't directed at you. Again though a biological connection between parents and child is just another positive on their side though. Their is such a thing as family pride. When two biological parents are starting a family, a part of it is with the idea that they are growing their family name, and spreading it into the future. Which if you are a believer in evolution, it is suggested that it's one of the reasons we choose to have kids.

Again though that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the individual who claimed that being a married biological parents doesn't matter. Again I suggest that if two people are going threw the effort to start a family the right way they have a high chance of being good parents.

 

A biological connection means you are connected with someone genetically. Genetics are not a social construct, but a biological reality.

Of course a two parent married loving couple is the ideal situation. If every person was born into a caring, stable, and married two person home there would be no reason for adoptions.

You seem to like to alter meanings and words in order to set up straw man arguments from what I see. You always ask questions in a way that gives you the best chance of a response that you want. I've been guilty of it in the past though so no worries. lol

Of course it's ideal. If everyone was born into a loving stable family that last we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes. It is. Strong well adjusted family connections are the first social structure mankind has, and is the ideal.We are not born from clay. You then have for a lack of a better term a tribe, which is nothing more then a grouping of families. A collection of tribes are what builds a civilization, often connected under the identification of a culture. Now the ideal forum of this, is that a child is raised in a loving caring family, grows up and becomes a positive functioning member of the tribe, which contributes to the improvement of civilization. That has been the ideal for generations, even going back to times when marriage had more to do with political connections then our ideal of love. Of course since utopias don't exist it's never been reached. That doesn't mean the ideal is wrong, it a general standard, not an individual absolute.

Besides words like family, tribe and civilization. Other words have been used such as clan, village, or nation. In fact there are multiple ways you can talk about the ideal but in the end the core of the idea is that individuals contribute to their own lives positively, and to the lives around them. Again it's an ideal though, not an absolute.

The benchmark is a well adjusted, functioning, adult who is able to live for themselves and others. In other words a person who understands his own rights, and the rights of others, along with the duties that are required to be a well adjusted adult. Of course it's impossible for that to happen universally. Evil (my words some people may use other terms) is a part of the human condition, and mankind is not a perfectible creature. But then again I'm not a radical behaviorist in the B.F. Skinner train of thought. I've never believed in the idea that mankind should want to be or ever would be "Beyond Freedom and Dignity".

 

Nothing you said in that entire post is remotely relevant to the points I made.

Children born to homosexual parents may meet all of your criteria.

 

Sorry, I thought you were looking for exclusivity at the species level, not individual pairings. That is much easier to answer. Many species exhibit exclusive homosexual behavior between individual pairs. Black swans and domesticated sheep are two such examples.

 

Thanks, guys, for highlighting a big part of the problem. It's not just about same-sex families; it's about the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s outside those families.

 

According to Wikipedia black swans form "temporary threesomes with females" so they are not exclusively homosexual.

And look at this: Is ram behaviour evidence of "natural" homosexuality?

quote: Let's take the Rocky Mountain Sheep first. Their usual social pattern is a flock of ewes dominated sexually and organisationally by a very limited number of males who have achieved their position through ferocious and bloody combats in which they use their large, curled horns. The losers in these fights form a fringe group together with other bachelor males who are not yet mature enough to challenge for the leadership. In this group there are frequent encounters which seem homosexual in which males show most of the usual sexual behaviours, but in the presence of other males, and will quite often mount them.
However all is not as it seems. During the breeding season these fringe groups disperse and disappear (Fisher and Mathews (2)). They have all joined the annual competition for the dominant heterosexual positions. This means at most they are bisexual. Heterosexual sexual expression is dominant for the time being and homosexual expression is abandoned in its favour. In this species homosexual expression in rams is for the losers - rather reminiscent of "situational homosexuality" among men in prisons.
A very similar process was observed following one controlled culling experiment (Shackleton (3)). In one group of Rocky Mountain Sheep it was necessary for conservation reasons to shoot most of the dominant males. Following that, the candidate fringe males matured very fast and filled the vacant spots, exercising their usually frustrated heterosexual instincts. Researchers noted that they did this successfully - they were not poorly performing heterosexuals. For a season there was a lack of homosexual activity, because there was practically no fringe group.

So this is like young men who fail to find a female partner for whatever reason and then turn, with varying degrees of reluctance, to other men.

Possible reasons:

*no females available for lower status males because of polygamy
*no females available because the men are in prison
*no females available because the men attend a British boarding school
*they feel they are unattractive

Out of millions of species you cant seem to find one that exhibits exclusive homosexuality!

 

Appeals to nature are a logical fallacy.

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good. Just because something is not natural doesn't mean it's bad.

Further not only is your appeal to nature fallacious it's wrong. Homosexuals aren't man made, they are also not supernatural thus the only conclusion is that they must be natural.

Unless you can locate the laboratory in which they were created or the pixie dust that created them, you must conceed to remain credible.

 

I think two parents are important. A husband and a wife raising children is the foundation of civilization. That's pretty important.

 

We ignore nature at our peril.

That is a trivial observation. We are contrasting natural with unhealthy aberrations.

Do you agree that exclusive homosexuality is unnatural?

Isn't homosexual marriage all about exclusive homosexuality?

Do these questions frighten you?

Pixie dust is in fact involved.

This guy definitely works with pixie dust:

 

That begs the question though doesn't it? Is it important to society because you say it is?

 

In this case common sense is spot on. It doesn't require a political ideology to know that a stable family consisting of a Mother and Father is the best environment for raising children. It does however take a political ideology to deny that, or argue the opposite.

 

Yep every time we get into a car, or cure an illness. Life is risky. Nature is perilous.

We actually aren't. You ate so deeply vested in your opinion that you really can't even tell that it is your opinion. It's called confirmation bias. You are bothered by it so therefore it must be unhealthy. It's a common mistake, don't feel bad.

No, seeing as it wasn't man made or supernatural one can only logically assume that it is natural. You made the claim that it was unnatural, prove it, the burden is on you.

It's actually about legal status.

No. Should they?

I was unaware of the existence of pixie dust, can you explain it's properties?

 

I've heard this chant almost like a mindless drone. That the best environment for children is such and such.

If it really was you could easily prove it. You've made the claim let's see the juice.

 

Seems unlikely.

Do any animals exhibit exclusive homosexuality? Yes or no?

 

Humans do. So yes.

 

Wow the question really seems to terrify you lol. Just give me a straight answer.

Do any non-human animals exhibit exclusive homosexuality? Yes or no?

Exclusive homosexuality in humans may be the product of an aberrational decadent culture.

 

What a strange thing to say.
I did give you a straight answer. Humans do and they are animals, so yes. What is unclear about that?

I honestly don't know.

Or not. Probably not.

 

Can you honestly tell me Polydectes that you are exclusively homosexual?

You feel no attraction at all for:


- - - Updated - - -

Can you offer any examples of non-human animals exhibiting exclusive homosexuality?

 

You aren't listening, of course. You have decided what's best for children, and decided that if the facts disagree with you, the facts suffer from political ideology.

Children do best when the parents care, and pay attention, and are loving and supportive. This is as true for straight as for gay couples, and as true for biological as for adopted children. And it takes political ideology to cherry-pick ONE of these ideal situations and rule out the rest.

 

But as far as anyone can tell, every known culture has had the same aberration to the same degree, because the incidence of homosexuality is the same for all cultures everywhere and every time in the past. Cultures have only varied in their level of acceptance of this subgroup, not the frequency of appearance.

 

Your attitude about crotches is rather.....strange. It's not the crotches themselves that's the focus point, but the physical proof of masculinity and/or femininity and what follows that, in regards to being feminine or masculine....like dress attire, mannerisms, mindset, etc...... and why would 'crotches' even have to come up in family conversations, except for a specific reason?

What's wrong w/a man acting like a man and a woman acting like a woman? I mean the heterosexuals anyway........

Oh well...... to each their own.