Why Gay Parents May Be The Best Parents

[Amppax]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1326845712' post='2370701']
I should add, that was pretty much every assignment I had in one class last semester. "Tear apart this study, show me how they're lying."
[/quote]

We got extra credit in my AP class for doing that. It was a lot of fun.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1326897391' post='2370996']
I appreciate the response. And yes, I am fully aware of the Church's position on this matter--I am, in truth, quite the knowledgeable Roman Catholic, whose beliefs on homosexuality only seem to get me designated as "phishy"--as is in, not ENTIRELY Catholic-- on Phatmass. I recognize the source of the beliefs, but I just don't agree with them. In any case, as I said, I appreciate the response.
[/quote]

No problem.

[tinytherese]

Do I even want to know how someone with same sex attraction "accidentally conceives" a child? The only situations I can think of are if they were drunk enough to sleep with someone of the opposite sex or they don't act on their same sex attraction but date someone of the opposite sex and sleep with them.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326894378' post='2370984']
Maybe I should have added that I am only referring to the field of human behavior[e.g. psychology, sociology]. Fields such as biology and physics are more trustworthy in their research. I am not and meant not to discredit research and researchers as a whole, but rather to not just take their word for it. Anyone can write an article and say, studies who this and studies show that. I know people that take studies like this and without scrutiny will change their behavior. A lot of publications have retracted studies associated with Stapel’s data. However,

Ads can affect whether and how consumers think about the self
Coffee as a cause of pancreatic cancer
Type A personality causing heart attacks
Breakfast cereal consumption increasing the odds that a woman will give birth to a boy
Scientists discriminated more if their labs were messy
Claimed meat was behind all the human aggression
We use better manners if a wine glass is on the dinner table

Seems that the more amazing the claim, the better, especially when dealing with sociological human behavior.
[/quote]
Oh okay, I understand. Thanks for clarifying. :-D

[BG45]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326901103' post='2371012']
We got extra credit in my AP class for doing that. It was a lot of fun.
[/quote]

It can be, and it doesn't have to be malicious, it can totally be an accident.

A lot of the studies I were assigned looked great, and then after an hour you hit the point where you go "Oh wow, they didn't do X when they should have" and you realize it probably wasn't intentional...unless it's totally blatant. One guy, I forget what he had, but the article outright stated there were no conflicting loyalties by the researcher that could be called into question. Then under the funding section, he was bankrolled entirely by the group that funded him. People fund you when they have an agenda, and you have to wonder, did he mis-represent himself as having no conflicting interests, or did he find what they wanted found?

My favorite example of all rhetoric being falsified to an extent is the 100,000 missing sex offenders. There are 100,000 estimated people who have gone "missing" from national sex offender registries. However, that number starts becoming way more nebulous the more you look at it.
A few examples:
1) People move and do update their information, but one registry not run by a government agency might list them still at an old address. Suddenly we have a missing sex offender.
2) People die, but they're still on a registry perhaps (it happens a lot). Another missing sex offender.
3) People aren't on the registry for a lifetime and get taken off some, but not others. Another missing sex offender.
4) And of course, the scary category, the genuinely missing sex offenders.

Which, it's not that it's maliciously false. It's just that it's not entirely true...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzGlbRKzqw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzGlbRKzqw[/url]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

I apologize for the length ahead of time. I'm sorry. I'm chatty. It's part of my charm

When reading this article my first question was "by what standard is being the 'best' or a 'better' parent judged?" Upon reading, the general phrase/standard that is raised is raising a child who is "well adjusted AND successful." ("Well adjusted" seems very unspecific and unquantifiable to me...very unscientific). Such a claim is backed up by the idea that heterosexual couples have accidental children and homosexuals do not. Homosexuals are characterized as more attentive to , committed to and involved with their children as well as more tolerant than heterosexual couples and therefore are better nurturers. In fact, after making these generalizations the article goes on to articulate that gay couples are more diverse than heterosexual ones. "Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men." We also, know that homosexuals are the most tolerant too so therefore their children will be.

These claims are all very false and very easy to take apart. No child is an accident. They are always the result of sex (also I thought we were supposed to believe we could plan our parenthood with contraception?). Homosexuals are the most tolerant seems like a dubious claim as well (simply because I doubt the general "virtue" of tolerance in our society...it is generally used as an appeal to end true conversation and discussion by saying one is intolerant).

Anyway, that is not my main point. The main problem I see with this argument is that it puts the cart before the horse. It is using a utilitarian argument rather than talking about the reality of the thing. The argument claims that the result of this phenomenon of same sex parents results in children who "are well adjusted and successful" therefore, it should be alright. The problem is that this is not a good basis by which to judge parenthood. Whether one can send a child to a "good college" or get them a car or have satellite TV in the home all while kids are active in sports and social has little to do with being a good parent.

I have heard a lot about the rights of adults (whether people have the right to marriage or to adopt) but let us discuss the rights of children. First of all, I do not think anyone has a "right" to marriage. Such a right seems dubious since people give themselves to each other in marriage. We do not have a right to that gift (this definition of marriage also raises questions of what "giving oneself" to another means and who can receive such a thing: remember the reception of the gift is limited by the receiver not by the giver, this also has bearing on the question of marriage; however, such questions must be left aside for now.) Children have rights, a right to a loving home and a right care, this is true. They also have a right to their parents. No child is ever brought into this world without a Father and without a Mother. In fact, when one parent abandons a child we recognize this as a fault and a wound for the child. Rights then are what are proper and necessary to a person that allow them to flourish, not materially or be "well adjusted" but lead truly happy and lead a life of goodness. (Ex. Emily Dickinson was not a well adjusted member of society but she did flourish and led a good life writing poetry. Her life was spent seeking the good of properly describing reality in a beautiful manner. Note: one can describe reality through a fictional story). As such, It seems not that couples have right to children but children have a right to their parents. This is what makes adoption possible that children have these rights (we often look at adoption the other way around). As such, we should try to find that which most closely imitates nature and which children are due: two parents (a Father and Mother) who love and care for the child. This is the right of the child it seems. How can one be a good parent and not fulfill the child's rights, even if they could buy them everything, send them to an Ivy League School, and have them be "well adjusted?" They can't. This is not just true of homosexual couples, either, but rather all couples that do not properly care for their children and are aware of their responsibilities to the child. However, it seems that the only possibility of the standard for being the "best" parent comes from fulfilling the rights of the child. As such, the idea of homosexual parenting fails to meet one of the rights of the child and (seems to me) proceeds from the idea that there is no actual difference between the sexes that truly influences the development of human being, an assertion which through simple observation just seems wrong to me (note: we cannot help making the distinction between the sexes as Father and Mother even to the point of the book called "Heather has two mommies"). Such an assertion of the character of the sexes allows the first right of children, to their Father and Mother, to be dismissed when it should not be. This article has its standard by which it judges parenthood all messed up and rather than judging what a child needs to lead a good and flourishing life (these ideas do not necessarily include material wealth but rather proper development of the human person) judges by "adjusting well" to societal norms and material success. "Well adjusted" does not equal human flourishing, one need only look to history to see many people who revolutionized their culture because they were not well adjusted to it but rather sought the good and often times these people were not wealthy or materially successful. What poor parenting skills Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Mother Theresa's, and Ghandi's parents must have had to raise such children who were not "well adjusted" to their societies or materially successful but rather renounced such things.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[BG45]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326966520' post='2371381']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzGlbRKzqw[/media]
[/quote]

Oh Sheldon...he thinks biology is a bunch of hokum too. Cost him his relationship with Amy one episode!

[Dennis Tate]

I personally believe that it may be possible to save the lives of a significant number of unborn children through film projects where a number of potential adoptive parents audition to adopt the baby if the mother will carry her child all the way to birth. In some cases a woman might be interested in adopting her child out to a male gay couple if they make it clear to her that they want her to continue to be involved with the child in the future, if she chooses to do so!

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dennis Tate

[ardillacid]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1327009958' post='2371607']


Oh Sheldon...he thinks biology is a bunch of hokum too. Cost him his relationship with Amy one episode!
[/quote]not true. It was her assertion that her field of neurobiology and her project of mapping the brain was superior to physics.

[Dennis Tate]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1327588146' post='2375683']
not true. It was her assertion that her field of neurobiology and her project of mapping the brain was superior to physics.
[/quote]

Pastor Rick Joyner in his extensive visionary dream states that one child is esteemed of more value than a galaxy of stars so if his dream was a genuine example of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the latter days then I would say that she was right and Sheldon was in error!

http://www.heaven.net.nz/visions/the-hordes-of-hell-are-marching.htm
[quote]

As I approached the Judgment Seat of Christ, those in the highest ranks were also sitting on thrones that were all a part of His throne. Even the least of these thrones was more glorious than any earthly throne many times over. Some of these were rulers over cities on earth who would soon take their place. Others were rulers over the affairs of heaven, and others over the affairs of the physical creation, such as star systems and galaxies. However, it was apparent that those who were given authority over cities were esteemed above those who had even been given authority over galaxies. The value of a single child was more than a galaxy of stars, because the Holy Spirit dwelt in men, and the Lord had chosen men as His eternal dwelling place. In the presence of His glory the whole earth seemed as insignificant as a speck of dust, and yet was so infinitely esteemed that the attention of the whole host of heaven was upon it.
[/quote]