|
On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills.
Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before.
|
On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
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.
The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India).
|
On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
Once again, we aren't talking about whether women and men have different skillsets. The leap you are making in assuming it's okay to distill it down to that is that because of the inherent differences between men and women, it must necessarily follow that men and women cannot teach and parent kids equally in every aspect of their lives. It's flat out ridiculous and unsupported by anything other than wild imaginations
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before.
So when certain gender roles are consistent across pretty much all cultures and countries on this planet it has to be sexist nonsense, right?
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
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. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India).
Not that I'd discount the study, but whether culture X is "more equal" than culture Y doesn't really imply that culture Y has absolutely no qualities which culture X lacks. Just as an example, perhaps Indian culture simply didn't develop a stigma around technology in the same way that the West did, leading to (hypothetically) a smaller divide in that sector when it comes to gender.
Again, that example is just an example, not something I'd actually assert, but it's actually fallacious to assume that society which is "more equal" than another can be expected to perform better with respect to equality in every metric/measurement.
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 arsonist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:12 Gen.Rolly wrote: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."
What do opinions and science have to do with each other? If science can say something about an issue, then it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. And things which are not subject to facts, such as a person's values or morality, cannot be influenced by evidence.
On June 27 2013 09:30 Maxd11 wrote:
This is really really bad. I think it's time for this thread should be closed or something. The first post was a simple recognition of the fact that a developer of this forum and news website added some art to the top banner that suggested (at most) that he supports the cause of a minority group that is seeking equal rights under the law. We've come a long and disgusting way from there.
Please explain to me how closing the thread furthers the admins' original intention of supporting equal rights. They make a stand, and then hide from the people who oppose that stand? That's not taking a stand at all. You think you can change views by pretending they don't exist and hiding them from sight?
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
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. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India).
But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate?
|
On June 27 2013 10:32 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. So when certain gender roles are consistent across pretty much all cultures and countries on this planet it has to be sexist nonsense, right?
The idea that only women can teach children about emotions and men about gritty reality is indeed hopelessly sexist, even if we ignore that this isn't by any means innate or continuous across all cultures (pre-agrarian hunter-gather societies were basically egalitarian, for example, with men/women both hunting game and raising children communally).
|
On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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.
Gen.Rolly was implying that some stuff are exclusively taught by one gender or the other.
Even though they are difference, they are not exclusive. Just more or less likely.
|
On June 27 2013 10:32 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. So when certain gender roles are consistent across pretty much all cultures and countries on this planet it has to be sexist nonsense, right?
Look dude, get it straight, the argument presented was that men and women are restricted in what they can effectively teach.
You're going on and on about it being true that men and women have differences, etc. This has utterly nothing to do with the original argument, so please stop muddying the water and attacking arguments that weren't made
|
The only real problem that I have with gays raising kids is that, well, in today's society the kid will be faced with a harsher reality than if he was being raised by your average mom and dad. Not saying that gays can't raise a kid - what I mean is that the kid will have a harder time growing up, having to explain to his classmates why he has two dads or two moms etc. I think it could easily lead to bullying in school / workplaces.
Give it ~50-60 years and I'm sure the world will be more accepting of gays than it is right now, hell look back 30 years and see how the world has changed.
As for the current discussion. Sure I get what the gen. means - it'd be quite hard for a man to explain what it's going to be like for a 14 year old girl in puberty. Impossible? No. I wouldn't mind them adding some sort of child license or some shit though when you get a kid. A obligatory course (for all parents) to take, sort of like when you get a drivers license. Just basic shit that you go through so you won't fuck up the kid too much.
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before.
THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good).
But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit.
|
On June 27 2013 10:35 Asol wrote:
The only real problem that I have with gays raising kids is that, well, in today's society the kid will be faced with a harsher reality than if he was being raised by your average mom and dad. Not saying that gays can't raise a kid - what I mean is that the kid will have a harder time growing up, having to explain to his classmates why he has two dads or two moms etc. I think it could easily lead to bullying in school / workplaces.
Give it ~50-60 years and I'm sure the world will be more accepting of gays than it is right now, hell look back 30 years and see how the world has changed.
Yeah but again the kids are not created with the purpose of being handed to gay parents... If those those kids are not taken in charge by homosexual parents, there aren't enough heterosexual couples to take them in charge anyway so they're raised by institutions. That's also harsh, and certainly worse than being raised by homosexual, yet loving parents.
|
On June 27 2013 10:35 Asol wrote:
The only real problem that I have with gays raising kids is that, well, in today's society the kid will be faced with a harsher reality than if he was being raised by your average mom and dad. Not saying that gays can't raise a kid - what I mean is that the kid will have a harder time growing up, having to explain to his classmates why he has two dads or two moms etc. I think it could easily lead to bullying in school / workplaces.
Give it ~50-60 years and I'm sure the world will be more accepting of gays than it is right now, hell look back 30 years and see how the world has changed.
Yes, but unfortunately this is a problem that every child of a minority group could face. We should focus on stopping bullying instead of preventing them the right to have children.
Depend largely on where you live though. From my experience of high school in Canada, you were much more likely to get bullied if you were emo than if you were homosexual.
|
On June 27 2013 10:33 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 arsonist wrote:On June 27 2013 10:12 Gen.Rolly wrote: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." What do opinions and science have to do with each other? If science can say something about an issue, then it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. And things which are not subject to facts, such as a person's values or morality, cannot be influenced by evidence.
I believe (as in, it is my opinion) that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents. This opinion is formed, and supported, by evidence-based science. His opinion is that heterosexual parents are superior to homosexual parents. (The scientific evidence contradicts his opinion, but he's welcome to it.) This opinion is formed by a personal sense of values and morality (religion?).
My point is, on which would we prefer to base public policy? The values and morality of individuals, which vary widely, or on evidence-based science? I'll go with science, personally. Even when science can say something about an issue, it isn't necessarily accepted as fact - if it were, this entire discussion would be unnecessary. Clearly, some people choose to ignore science and instead are informed by their faith, etc.
|
On June 27 2013 10:35 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 10:26 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. I don't really agree with your thesis to begin with, but it doesn't matter because the poster in question said that only a mother can teach certain skills, which is absurd by virtue of the fact that there exist at least some fathers who are capable of teaching those skills. Besides, it's not like parents are teaching their children to become computer scientists or nurses when we think of what the poster in question was talking about. He meant that some things are "men's province" and others "women's province." Typical women teaching about emotions and men teaching about the "real world." Sexist nonsense, and I'm near-certain that's what he meant, because I've encountered it before. THANK YOU Shiori. You worded that very well, much better than I did (lol yeah, I kinda lost it and did more harm than good). But yeah. People seem to only recognize hostile sexism; i.e. going into Tara Babcocks stream and saying "Tits or GTFO bitch! You should be in the kitchen where you belong!". They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women. For example, making the statement "men are generally better about teaching kids about real-world stuff and women are naturally better about teaching kids how to be kind and shit" is unfair to men who are very kind-hearted and on women who are very frank about real-world shit.
No it is not, if men are _genereally_ (not exclusive) better at XY doesnt mean you put down men being good at AB which women are good at. That is what you imply by your own standard of "fairness". And "fairness" doesnt make a fact (or not) right or wrong. It is not "fair" that women in general are smaller and have lesser muscle mass, yet it is a known fact.
But i dont want this discussion to be a stupid gender discussion again. So let us leave it there. Just dont pull the sexist card if not needed because you ruin a discussion with it.
|
They don't realize that saying that "Men are naturally like this, and women are naturally like that places restrictions on men and women.
I don't see how it places restrictions. It is simply a generalized descriptive statement which is either true or not true. We should not fear the consequences of the truth if it is, indeed, true. Which it is, if you keep up with the science.
If you say that men are naturally more muscular than women, does that restrict women from enjoying sports? Of course not.
|
On June 27 2013 10:35 Asol wrote:
The only real problem that I have with gays raising kids is that, well, in today's society the kid will be faced with a harsher reality than if he was being raised by your average mom and dad. Not saying that gays can't raise a kid - what I mean is that the kid will have a harder time growing up, having to explain to his classmates why he has two dads or two moms etc. I think it could easily lead to bullying in school / workplaces.
Give it ~50-60 years and I'm sure the world will be more accepting of gays than it is right now, hell look back 30 years and see how the world has changed.
As for the current discussion. Sure I get what the gen. means - it'd be quite hard for a man to explain what it's going to be like for a 14 year old girl in puberty. Impossible? No. I wouldn't mind them adding some sort of child license or some shit though when you get a kid. A obligatory course (for all parents) to take, sort of like when you get a drivers license. Just basic shit that you go through so you won't fuck up the kid too much.
The problem with that argument is that it is basically allowing a hecklers veto to target homosexuals. Why is a kid with gay parents going to face a harsher reality? Because many people are homophobic, that's why. So basically homophobics get to further their own agenda with their discriminatory behavior.
|
On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
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. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate?
Here's the idea about cultural vs innate.
When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures.
If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses.
|
On June 27 2013 10:41 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:33 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 10:25 screamingpalm wrote:
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. The biggest one is probably the BBC Internet study done by Dr. Richard Lippa (published 2007). He confirmed certain gender specific interests and values across all 52 countries present in his study with a total of over 200000 participants. Interestingly countries that are considered to be very "equal" when it comes to genders (e.g. Norway) had those things much more defined than countries which are considered very "unequal" (e.g. Saudi Arabia or India). But did he determine whether those gender roles were cultural or if they are innate? Here's the idea about cultural vs innate. When you take an insanely large samplesize (this study is afaik the biggest ever done on these topics) and spread it all across the globe you are bound to find sizable differences if something is not caused by a biological difference. You could look at the clothing that people wear and I'm pretty sure you would figure out that in some cultures women prefer trousers, in others they prefer skirts and in some cultures men wear what other cultures would call skirts. Things that are mostly culturally based show differences in different cultures. If you have patterns that show a very strong difference between certain things and it's consistent across all cultures and nationalities then it's highly likely that something biological is behind it. There simply is no country on this planet where the majority of women want to be an engineers. No country exists where the majority of men want to be nurses.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_nursing
Nursing schools for men were common in the United States until the early 1900, more than half of those offering paid nursing services to the ill and injured were men. Yet by 1930, men constituted fewer than 1% of RNs in the United States."[5] As they found other, more lucrative occupations, they left nursing behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
