SD on 26/1/2007 at 01:18
Quote Posted by paloalto
Huh.My common sense says that it does.I guess common senses are different.Which is why we need more study.An unbiased study to.The unbiased part is not referring to the study you pointed to in your thread.
Out of interest, what are the factors that make you think a gay couple may be less able to bring a child up than a straight couple?
Gorgonseye on 26/1/2007 at 01:23
Well Strontz, (Yea even I have been reading this thread, though I must say it got somewhat boring once it became longer then my thread) while gay parents themselves might not be worse parents, (Heck, they could maybe even be better) the classic family is generally mom and dad. Guy and girl family. Gay parents might have a strong effect on the kid socially, as he may see other kid's as him strange, or other kids will find it weird. Also, with gay hating still in existence, it could cause parents to tell their kids "Stay away from that boy." Regarding the fact that they dont want their children to think it's okay to be gay.
All in all, I'm with paloalto on this one. (Like that means much...)
SubJeff on 26/1/2007 at 01:36
Yeah, but then that's a Catch22 situation, no? Not a good reason imho. Once you let it happen it'll soon normalise.
Gorgonseye on 26/1/2007 at 01:42
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yeah, but then that's a Catch22 situation, no?
I'm sorry...what?
Also, it would EVENTUALLY normalize, but most likley over a course of years.
(Probably my second and last post in this thread)
mopgoblin on 26/1/2007 at 01:49
Quote Posted by Gorgonseye
Gay parents might have a strong effect on the kid socially, as he may see other kid's as him strange, or other kids will find it weird. Also, with gay hating still in existence, it could cause parents to tell their kids "Stay away from that boy." Regarding the fact that they dont want their children to think it's okay to be gay.
That's just a variant of "other people can be dickheads" though, which isn't a good enough reason - it could be applied to anyone with characteristics some people might not like. Stupid prejudices can be based on plenty of things - religion, race (including being a mixed-race couple), disability, attractiveness, etc.
The only potentially valid reason I can think of is that they'd usually be missing a role model of one sex in the immediate family. But there are plenty of single parents who manage to raise normal children, so it's probably not that much of an obstacle to a competent parent.
SubJeff on 26/1/2007 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Gorgonseye
I'm sorry...what?
Also, it would EVENTUALLY normalize, but most likley over a course of years.
(Probably my second and last post in this thread)
What? You don't know what Catch22 is? It's like your car keys locked in the car.
I don't think it would take that long to normalise tbh. And even when it has been there will be some idiots who always take objection to anything.
Selkie on 26/1/2007 at 02:36
CHRISSAKE!
You take two weeks off and nothing changes. How is it that CommChat somehow manages to upstage tedium? I don't wish to sound trite, but I can't help but feel that this 'debate' demeans (and, more to the point, upsets) a lot of people who should know better. :erg:
[\holierthanthou]
Aerothorn on 26/1/2007 at 03:24
These are people who don't have something more constructive to do than debate on the internet. What do you expect? :)
the_grip on 26/1/2007 at 03:31
Uncia, in my continued (but apparently failing) effort not to drag the abortion thing out too far i won't try to drum up citations that i have used for my own study in the past (unless you'd like to see them, i could PM or something).
At any rate, if you read the conclusions of the studies you cited, you will see quotes like the following:
(from (
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf))
Quote:
The in-depth interviews revealed that these reasons are multiple dimensions of complicated life situations. For example, financial difficulties are often the result of lack of support from one's partner, or lack of a partner altogether; and the financial and emotional responsibility to provide for existing children without adequate resources makes it too hard for some women to care for another child.
Quote:
In addition, the topic of women's limited resources, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, regularly appeared in the survey and interview responses. A large majority of women cited financial hardship, often along with other reasons. Financial problems, exacerbated by other forms of instability, limit women's ability to provide sufficient support to additional children. The concept of responsibility is inseparable from the theme of limited resources; given their present circumstances, respondents considered their decision to have an abortion the most responsible action. The fact that many women cited financial limitations as a reason for ending a pregnancy suggests that further restrictions on public assistance to families could contribute to a continued increase in abortions among the most disadvantaged women.
Quote:
In the in-depth interviews, the language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired; instead, these women were deciding not to have a child at this time. Facing unintended pregnancies, they clearly understood the implications of having a child (most of them firsthand) and were aware of their options. They saw not having a child as their best (and sometimes only) option.
Lastly, which speaks volumes regarding support:
Quote:
The fact that an increasing proportion of women having abortions are poor underscores the importance of public assistance for family planning programs as an effective means of reducing the incidence of both unintended pregnancy and abortion.
The study mentions race a little bit, but generally speaking minorities comprise the majority of abortions (mostly poor black women with an increase in poor hispanic women) and women below the poverty line far outnumber those at or above it.
The second link you have mentions "Inability to support or care for a child" as a common reason, and the some of the others can be the result of a lack of support. It's not so much a study as a broad analysis of several studies.
Anyways - dammit i need to let this rest :)
Ko0K on 26/1/2007 at 03:34
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I find it funny that people take this stance when science itself is proving how
little we know about the universe we live in rather than the contrary. I mean, a huge topic lately has been that of Dark Matter, saying that the vast majority of matter within our universe is stuff we can't sense or detect in any fashion whatsoever save perhaps its effect on gravity. So if the majority of matter is stuff we can't see or interact with, doesn't that mean that the tiny percent of stuff we
can see is the exception, not the rule? What if our version of matter (ie. the stuff that isn't Dark Matter) is just the leftover shit from the "real" universe we can't see? If God exists and we can't seem to find him here, I think its possibly because he's somewhere in that 90% of other stuff that doesn't interact with our version of matter in any way...
You'll also notice that stance was nullified in my subsequent post, when I said that facts cannot disprove god's existence, either. My main point is that most religious people tend to confuse their belief with knowledge. Knowledge is based on observable facts, whereas belief is pretty much nothing more than an unfounded assumption. The only reason that organized religion is so contageous is because it's human nature to seek comfort in numbers. I hear religious people say that "God is love" and "Jesus saves" and such, but not even once have I heard "I believe" preceding what they say. Full of shit, if you ask me.
(edit) That sounds rather harsh, but I simply believe that belief and knowledge should be separate. Anyway, belief was of great value to me once, and seems that I do have a chip on the shoulder. I don't mean any personal offense to anyone.
