Tiamat on 29/1/2007 at 21:57
Quote Posted by paloalto
One last response on this.The statement about innumerable studies since the 1950's is about the other statement of the importance of the child bonding with the mother not any negative effects of homosexual parenting.You point to one study showing there are none.And my position is we need more study.The difference between you and I is that I am willing to say I don't know and you are not.You want to take one study and draw a conclusion.The issue is what is best for the child not any couples who may adopt the child.Capice.
In that case, nearly any parents at all are better than an orphanage - you can't afford to turn people away based on sexuality if what you're worried about is the child's welfare.
Convict on 31/1/2007 at 11:32
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Are you trying to say that despite the thousands of single parents successfully bringing up children that there aren't thousands of single parents successfully bringing up children?
No I don't believe I said that. :confused: I said what does the literature show when comparisons are made with similar socio-economic status.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Perhaps nobody's mentioned that little nugget up because no one is prepared to so obviously clutch at straws. Thing is, there are thousands of single parents doing a great job of parenting. I can testify to a couple of them, I'm sure everyone else on the board can think of a few others. So when 'the literature' says that there's something inherently inferior with single parenting then the correct response is to point and laugh at the silly agenda pushers. It's a half truth.
The literature could show that single parents of similar SES are better than M+F married parents. I'm open minded - are you? ;)
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
And are you really trying to say that where there are advantages to parenting in couples it's all because of the gender of the person they sleep with?
Nope I'm open minded. What does the literature suggest was my point.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Maybe if we were all middle class heterosexual drones living in couples bringing up more middle class heterosexual drones to live in couples and bring up more middle class heterosexual cuoples yadda yadda, then it'd be very nice and we could live in happydroneyland - but life just ain't like that. In real life there are children needing parents and same sex individuals and couples who can parent as well as the next who are willing and able to adopt.
My point was to determine what is best and remain open-minded to all possibilities.
jay pettitt on 31/1/2007 at 17:30
Apologies if I misinterpreted your post. Unfortunately it featured (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1551933#post1551933) little in the way of actual content, so I was left trying to garner it's meaning based on things like: previous experience of Convict's posts.
By the way, what does 'the literature' say..?
On an almost entirely separate note, I dismissed your previous reply about the crusades and stuff on the notion that I've never read a single piece of literature that described the roles of Christians/Muslims as respectively Barbarians/Innocent bystanders. Neither am I about to roll over and ask Prof Wiley-Smith to tickle my tummy and rewrite history because he mentioned terrorism and Bin Laden.
Yeah, I reckon I am pretty open minded about the whole thing. But to paraphrase someone or other; not so minded so that there's wind whistling through the gap between my ears.
Convict on 1/2/2007 at 08:09
It was a question so it didn't have content.
Have I ever been unfair or mean in any way to single mothers? I can quite positively say I haven't.
I'm not sure what the literature says - I haven't looked and I'm in the middle of doing my own (attempt at!) systematic review of the literature regarding the effectiveness of creatine use for healthy young men such as myself so I couldn't be bothered looking.
Vivian on 1/2/2007 at 09:17
I read somewhere that the way excessive creatine levels release phosphate compounds under acidosis can cause you to grow nipples on your balls
jay pettitt on 1/2/2007 at 11:36
To be honest Convict I think my reply stands. Mopgoblin's comments were perfectly reasonable. The trouble with studies is that people will try and draw conclusions from them. You'd need a heck of a lot of studies looking at all sorts of different factors, all conclusive one way or the other, before you'd produce a wall of evidence sufficient enough to start suggesting whether or not there was something somehow particularly good or awful with having only one gender represented in a parent unit.
And seeing as we all know parent units with genders represented variously, and plenty of them are doing just fine and producing kids with the proper count of ears and legs and things - I kind of suspect that sort of evidence isn't going to happen.
I didn't know you were vegetarian.
paloalto on 2/2/2007 at 03:15
Quote Posted by Tiamat
In that case, nearly any parents at all are better than an orphanage - you can't afford to turn people away based on sexuality if what you're worried about is the child's welfare.
I suspect you would not be for this restriction if it were put into place.
Tiamat on 3/2/2007 at 15:39
Quote Posted by paloalto
I suspect you would not be for this restriction if it were put into place.
No. I'm not for any restriction that would take away the rights of an individual based on his or her sexual preferance.
Kolya on 3/2/2007 at 16:27
Your intentions are good but make that statement a bit less wide because you wouldn't let a pedophile adopt a child would you?
Edit: A question that may be translation related: The term "sexual preferences" seems to imply choice. It's generally accepted though among scientists/medics that your sexual orientation isn't something you choose.
SD on 3/2/2007 at 20:26
Quote Posted by Kolya
Your intentions are good but make that statement a bit less wide because you wouldn't let a pedophile adopt a child would you?
Actually, it's very possible that we do let a lot of paedophiles adopt children, because it's very nearly impossible to tell what a person is thinking if he or she doesn't act on it.
Quote:
Edit: A question that may be translation related: The term "sexual preferences" seems to imply choice. It's generally accepted though among scientists/medics that your sexual
orientation isn't something you choose.
Yeah, I think this is a language thing, because "sexual preference" in English doesn't necessarily mean a choice one deliberately makes, merely which option you prefer, chosen consciously or not.
