|
On June 27 2013 10:08 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:58 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:54 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 09:50 Zephirdd wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? Science implies that children come from sperm and eggs (I see you completed 6th grade biology. Very impressive), but you believe that that means they are better off being raised by a man and a woman. Also, who are you to say that children shouldn't be raised by two men? Or two women? You provide no evidence whatsoever. All you do is say "they come from sperm and eggs, therefore they should be raised by a man and a woman". And you say it over and over again. playing the devil's advocate here, you sound like someone defending the church or something lol. We can raise animals, can we not? Don't we see stories of dogs that love their owners all the time? I've had a female dog which me(and my family) took care of from her 3 months until she passed away in 2010, almost 10 years old. Why can't a homo couple raise a kid and that kid be perfectly normal and happy? because it's not natural?! Bullshit. First because a homo couple understands better than anyone how to accept a child(consider they experienced a lot of shit on their lifes), secondly because a homo couple will take good care of a child that they WANTED(unlike it would occur to an unwanted natural-born child, ie. those abandoned children). Ah, I was going to say the same thing  , My cat was born from a female and male cat, but was raised by human. I guess that's immoral too. Also, that's not even taking into consideration other culture where family are not nuclear. Some culture don't even recognize paternity (matriarchal society) and some kids have more than 3 mothers. And they do just fine. I think Gen.Rolly is just a butthurt homophobic bigot who takes pleasure in shitting on the LGBT community because it makes him feel good about himself if he's able to tell himself that he's "carrying out god's word" or some bullshit. I just wish that people like that would  so that the rest of us can be rid of their appallingly disgusting bigotry. No matter how righteous your cause it is an absolutely horrible thing to wish for other people to die. Have you learned nothing from history?
"Please die" is a slightly rude expression used here in the US, fyi. It's not an actual threat or evil sentiment lol..... 100% sure he doesn't actually have hopes of people dying because of this
|
On June 27 2013 10:08 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:58 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:54 Shodaa wrote:On June 27 2013 09:50 Zephirdd wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? Science implies that children come from sperm and eggs (I see you completed 6th grade biology. Very impressive), but you believe that that means they are better off being raised by a man and a woman. Also, who are you to say that children shouldn't be raised by two men? Or two women? You provide no evidence whatsoever. All you do is say "they come from sperm and eggs, therefore they should be raised by a man and a woman". And you say it over and over again. playing the devil's advocate here, you sound like someone defending the church or something lol. We can raise animals, can we not? Don't we see stories of dogs that love their owners all the time? I've had a female dog which me(and my family) took care of from her 3 months until she passed away in 2010, almost 10 years old. Why can't a homo couple raise a kid and that kid be perfectly normal and happy? because it's not natural?! Bullshit. First because a homo couple understands better than anyone how to accept a child(consider they experienced a lot of shit on their lifes), secondly because a homo couple will take good care of a child that they WANTED(unlike it would occur to an unwanted natural-born child, ie. those abandoned children). Ah, I was going to say the same thing , My cat was born from a female and male cat, but was raised by human. I guess that's immoral too. Also, that's not even taking into consideration other culture where family are not nuclear. Some culture don't even recognize paternity (matriarchal society) and some kids have more than 3 mothers. And they do just fine. I think Gen.Rolly is just a butthurt homophobic bigot who takes pleasure in shitting on the LGBT community because it makes him feel good about himself if he's able to tell himself that he's "carrying out god's word" or some bullshit. I just wish that people like that would so that the rest of us can be rid of their appallingly disgusting bigotry. No matter how righteous your cause it is an absolutely horrible thing to wish for other people to die. Have you learned nothing from history?
I know, I know. I shouldn't have said that. I was out of line. Sometimes I act before thinking.
Also I really wanted to use that "plz die" emoticon :D
|
On June 27 2013 10:07 arsonist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:03 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. Interesting. Source? Certain truths cannot be garnered from any study. ... lol. This "truth", then, is only your opinion, and your opinion (alone) should not shape policies that determine the lives of other individuals who have their own "truths" and opinions that differ from yours, but are backed up with, you know, social science.
Every one lives according to a certain worldview. Even to accept scientific conclusions, you have to assert a certain measure of faith (i.e. that natural laws are consistent throughout time and that you can rely on your own conscious experience to verify what you measure in the natural world). I am not stating anything new here. That you can only learn certain things from your dad and certain things from you mom is not something you can reproduce in a lab. Human relationships and feelings transcend science.
Some one's opinion has to prevail, since the children in homosexual families do not have a voice of their own before they are placed into them.
|
United States24676 Posts
Well I actually agree that not all truths can be verified using studies and the methodologies of today. However, that doesn't excuse ridiculous assertions either (speaking generally).
|
On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are.
Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is.
Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason.
|
On June 27 2013 10:12 micronesia wrote:
Well I actually agree that not all truths can be verified using studies and the methodologies of today. However, that doesn't excuse ridiculous assertions either (speaking generally).
Sure. Core concepts in logic and math. If "A = B and B = C then A = C" doesn't need a scientific study to confirm this truth. I think everyone agrees here. The hilarious thing he does is make a terrible subjective claim and then call it "natural truth"
anyway I'm pretty sure the guy is just a troll. whatever
|
On June 27 2013 10:03 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. Interesting. Source? Certain truths cannot be garnered from any study.
Poll: Which of these is true?Gen.Rolly is irrational and/or insane. (14) 64% Gen.Rolly is a rational poster interested in discussion. (5) 23% Gen.Rolly is a (TL+ worthy) troll. (2) 9% Gen.Rolly has a rational opinion that I disagree with. (1) 5% 22 total votes Your vote: Which of these is true? (Vote): Gen.Rolly is a rational poster interested in discussion.
(Vote): Gen.Rolly is a (TL+ worthy) troll.
(Vote): Gen.Rolly has a rational opinion that I disagree with.
(Vote): Gen.Rolly is irrational and/or insane.
Add comments below!
On June 27 2013 10:03 horvaa wrote:
The "who should be parents" arugumentation is such a complex problem.
There are so many lgbt couples that would make exelent parents, way better then the average "Normal" couple.
But somewhere I still think that every child deserves a mother and a father. I dont really think single people should be able to adopt. I have no facts to back up anything It is just a personal feeling. Men and women are so different and the genders raise their kids differently and I think thats good for a child. Maybe not 100%needed but good for raising.
Thank you for your input. While I disagree with you on the single parents being able to adopt (it's already really hard to do so in this country), I cannot trivialize your view much because it is at least self consistent. I am assuming (hoping to god) that you don't think that the child issue (which is completely separate from the marriage issue) should preclude gay couples from marrying.
|
On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are.
... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist?
The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults.
|
On June 27 2013 10:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:12 micronesia wrote:
Well I actually agree that not all truths can be verified using studies and the methodologies of today. However, that doesn't excuse ridiculous assertions either (speaking generally). Sure. Core concepts in logic and math. If "A = B and B = C then A = C" doesn't need a scientific study to confirm this truth. I think everyone agrees here. The hilarious thing he does is make a terrible subjective claim and then call it "natural truth" anyway I'm pretty sure the guy is just a troll. whatever
I think micronesia is referring to things which are so multifactorial that it is impossible to properly control and thus examine a single predictor in an isolated setting. It is no excuse to not try, but there are plenty of such things out there.
|
On June 27 2013 10:14 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is. Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason.
It's not the worst case of sexism, but it is still sexist. Basically it is implying that there are gender roles that men and women should fall into, which compels people to fall into arbitrary gender roles. I may have been overreacting a bit when I said that, however I do feel it is sexist to imply that there are some things that ONLY men can teach a child, and other things that ONLY women can teach. It basically forces men and women into pre-defined gender roles.
|
On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults.
.....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post.
Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period.
|
On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults.
The claim that you can only learn certain things from your mother/father is basically false in every relevant sense. I mean, I guess only a father can teach a boy to pee standing up...? I get the feeling that the poster in question meant to imply that only fathers can teach certain values to their kids and only mothers can teach certain other values to their kids. Such an assertion is false even if you substitute "skills" for values (again excepting basic physical skills that come from biological sex).
The children of homosexual couples do not go wanting, and appear to be well-adjusted.
|
On June 27 2013 10:20 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is. Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason. It's not the worst case of sexism, but it is still sexist. Basically it is implying that there are gender roles that men and women should fall into, which compels people to fall into arbitrary gender roles. I may have been overreacting a bit when I said that, however I do feel it is sexist to imply that there are some things that ONLY men can teach a child, and other things that ONLY women can teach. It basically forces men and women into pre-defined gender roles.
Gender roles are largely predefined. The sentence "More women than men enjoy working with people and more men than women enjoy working with technology" isn't sexist, it's verifiable across pretty much every culture on this planet. Further than that, it's more correct in countries with high gender equality.
|
On June 27 2013 10:20 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is. Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason. It's not the worst case of sexism, but it is still sexist. Basically it is implying that there are gender roles that men and women should fall into, which compels people to fall into arbitrary gender roles. I may have been overreacting a bit when I said that, however I do feel it is sexist to imply that there are some things that ONLY men can teach a child, and other things that ONLY women can teach. It basically forces men and women into pre-defined gender roles.
If you want to have a gender discussion look up all the other genderrelated threads. It is not wrong to have such an opinion just because you dont fully agree on the semantics here. Maybe the ONLY is over the top but there is no reason to call someone a sexist and implying he is a racist aswell. That harms every discussion esp. when it is easy to dismiss his point of view be fair reasoning.
Long story short: Dont fucking pull your stupid sexist/racist card when there is absolutly no need for it.
|
Can you guys present some studies on predefined gender roles? As a stay-at-home dad whose wife works, I get enough grief as it is surrounding the topic and am interested in what conclusions these studies come to.
|
On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period.
It's what feminists call Benevolent sexism, i.e. not overly-hostile sexism, that most people think of when they think of sexism. This article provides an overview of the various types of sexism. Scroll down a bit for the section on hostile vs benevolent sexism.
|
On June 27 2013 10:22 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:20 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is. Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason. It's not the worst case of sexism, but it is still sexist. Basically it is implying that there are gender roles that men and women should fall into, which compels people to fall into arbitrary gender roles. I may have been overreacting a bit when I said that, however I do feel it is sexist to imply that there are some things that ONLY men can teach a child, and other things that ONLY women can teach. It basically forces men and women into pre-defined gender roles. Gender roles are largely predefined. The sentence "More women than men enjoy working with people and more men than women enjoy working with technology" isn't sexist, it's verifiable across pretty much every culture on this planet. Further than that, it's more correct in countries with high gender equality.
This has nothing to do with his original claim though, which is still ridiculous. He says men have this special ability to teach certain "things" to kids that women lack. Likewise women according to Rolly possess special abilities to teach kids things men are unable to teach.
That's the bullshit statement. The statement was never "men are different from women" or even "men have different gender roles than women"
|
On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:18 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. ... how exactly is the claim that men and women are different sexist? The least you can do when someone walks in that everyone disagrees with is to not look dumber than him by throwing out random insults. .....who made the claim that men and women are different? Answer: Not Gen.Rolly, not in that post. Gen.Rolly claims that there are certain things that only men may teach and that there are other things that only women may teach. Which is fucking ridiculous, period.
No it's not? Men and women, as groups in general, do have different interests and skillsets. I could start with "look around you" or "look around this forum" and go all the way "look at studies that have checked these kinds of things across multiple cultures".
Instead of arguing that men and women can teach the exact same things you should be arguing that gay people in general have certain traits that aren't gender specific. Inherently meaning that a gay mens interests and skillsets are in general closer to that of a woman - the exact same can be seen in gay women.
|
On June 27 2013 10:24 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:20 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 10:14 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:43 TOloseGT wrote:On June 27 2013 09:34 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 09:14 marvellosity wrote:
Why are people even arguing anymore, now it's become abundantly clear that "science" isn't a good enough reason, and obviously his own bigoted views that aren't supported by studies must actually be correct. Obviously this isn't someone you can rationalise with. A common tactic: when you disagree with someone, dismiss them as someone you cannot rationalize with. It is well documented that children come from sperm and eggs. I believe this implies children deserve to be raised by a mom and a dad. No study or metric can ever assess the countless dimensions of human psychology to suggest children raised by homosexual parents are as well off as children raised by straight couples, or that future generations of children will be. After all, every child is different. Who are you to say children (the natural product of a man and woman) should not be raised in that context? You're right that gay marriage isn't the solution to society's adoption woes. However, I believe it's a net positive in the grand scheme of things. The studies shown above are just the tip of what is coming, as there are still ongoing studies on this matter. Generally, any couple undertaking adoption have an advantage over natural birthing couples because there is that element of choice in when and where to have the child. They are also vetted by adoption agencies to see if their current lifestyle is suitable for children. Now I don't believe that no study or metric can assess the well-being of children raised by homosexual couples vs straight couples. Studies are already out there. You raise good points, and I agree having couples interested in raising children is a good thing, and those are the people you want adopting kids. However, family dynamics are somewhat complex and there is more to family than just providing for your kids. There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. I know that sounds shadowy, but it is hard to put into words, just like it is hard to define feelings of love in a few sentences. Since a child's early family environment is so crucial to her development, I would rather see heterosexual parents raise a child rather than homosexuals couples. Children are, afterall, the natural product of the love between a man and woman. Oh wow, he's sexist too!! Who would have thunk it? I wonder what this clown's thoughts on racism are. Not that i share this guys opinions but how is that sexist? I guess if i have to decide who lost the argument between him and you then i would say you lost it no matter how bad his reasoning is. Just a poor moral of having a discussion calling another person sexist for no fucking reason. It's not the worst case of sexism, but it is still sexist. Basically it is implying that there are gender roles that men and women should fall into, which compels people to fall into arbitrary gender roles. I may have been overreacting a bit when I said that, however I do feel it is sexist to imply that there are some things that ONLY men can teach a child, and other things that ONLY women can teach. It basically forces men and women into pre-defined gender roles. If you want to have a gender discussion look up all the other genderrelated threads. It is not wrong to have such an opinion just because you dont fully agree on the semantics here. Maybe the ONLY is over the top but there is no reason to call someone a sexist and implying he is a racist aswell. That harms every discussion esp. when it is easy to dismiss his point of view be fair reasoning. Long story short: Dont fucking pull your stupid sexist/racist card when there is absolutly no need for it.
I shouldn't have pulled the racist card since he didn't say anything racist. I'll give you that. However I have no regrets about pulling the sexist card. He was exhibiting benevolent sexism, which you can read all about here.
|
On June 27 2013 10:12 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:07 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:03 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 10:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 27 2013 09:59 Gen.Rolly wrote:
There are certain things you can only learn from your mom, and certain things you can only learn from your dad. Interesting. Source? Certain truths cannot be garnered from any study. ... lol. This "truth", then, is only your opinion, and your opinion (alone) should not shape policies that determine the lives of other individuals who have their own "truths" and opinions that differ from yours, but are backed up with, you know, social science. Every one lives according to a certain worldview. Even to accept scientific conclusions, you have to assert a certain measure of faith (i.e. that natural laws are consistent throughout time and that you can rely on your own conscious experience to verify what you measure in the natural world). I am not stating anything new here. That you can only learn certain things from your dad and certain things from you mom is not something you can reproduce in a lab. Human relationships and feelings transcend science. Some one's opinion has to prevail, since the children in homosexual families do not have a voice of their own before they are placed into them.
Right, someone's opinion does have to prevail, and on the one hand you have an opinion backed by evidence-based science, and on the other you have an opinion and "this is how I think things should be."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
