Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

so, adoptive kids should have more rights than biological kids?

or are you suggesting that all kids should be given the legal right to dismiss their parents?

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

of course it's comparable

you're talking about kids having the right to accept/veto parents - right?

Originally Posted by vharlow

They do it all the time....frequently even while living in the same house! This might have escaped your attention.

Indeed, all those leftist childrens rights advocates encourage this stuff. I won't deny there are lots of parents who shouldn't be. When what's his name movie star whom I detest spoke harshly to his daughter on the phone, media was expecting him to lose visitation rights!

Why was that?

Originally Posted by garysher

I already did. I have been a parent for 21 years. That's a lot of research!

I checked out your link but it wont let me download the paper

However, I detect a definite bias even in the overview

Originally Posted by garysher

Yeah right!! Let's ignore the views of parents and believe what we want to believe - that seems to be your approach!

It makes it abundantly clear just how important it is for a child to have both a mother and a father in their lives

Originally Posted by garysher

It's very simple

There is a reason why God, or Mother Nature, or whatever you believe in, determined that creating a child requires a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

of course it's comparable

you're talking about kids having the right to accept/veto parents - right?

Originally Posted by Jaxian

The websites I linked you ARE biased, but the studies themselves are not. As I said, I don't have a link to the actual text of the studies. Those sites are meant to present you with the names of studies, not the entire text of them. Once you have the names, you should be able to research them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The overviews alone convinced me that these studies are worthless - they use minute samples, draw entirely subjective conclusions and are conducted by people who have an axe to grind

What else have you got?








We should ignore the views of anyone who has neither reason, evidence, nor logic backing up what he says. Your argument appears to me to be, "I have raised children, therefore any belief I have is valid." That claim does not logically follow.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

So you think I am just as good at programming computers as you??




You have to be more specific. What, exactly, have you learned during your experiences in parenting which causes you to believe that a same-sex couple is at any disadvantage in raising children? State your reasoning, so that we might debate and discuss it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'll let the NY Court of Appeals express my views, as they are far more eloquent than I am:

"The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.

It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow
up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."




Let's imagine this scenario. There are two programming languages: S and G. You've used both sorts of programs, and programs written in G appear to be better than programs written in S. You've also noticed that people who study both sorts of programs say the same thing.

But then I say, "I've never used programming language G before, but it's horrible. I'm right because I'm a programmer."

Wouldn't you be skeptical until I actaully explain some reasons backing up my claim?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, I would accept your expert opinion



Your logic is, "Men and women are required to procreate, therefore one man and one woman is the best environment to raise a child." Again, I disagree with this logic.

If we believe in an intelligent creator, then we should guess that our creator wanted us to do all of the things he allowed us to do. Why else would he let us do it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you trying to use your puny human mind to try and understand how God thinks??

God gave mankind free will, this includes the freedom to commit sins such as homosexuality



If a creator thought it was best for one man and one woman to raise a child, logic suggests that this creator would have prevented such other arrangements from happening. Instead, it is completely possible for two men or two women to raise a child. That this possibility exists suggests that the creator meant for it to be left open as a viable alternative.

What this amounts to is: our creator wanted only one man and one woman to be required for giving birth to a child, but our creator wanted any combination of people to be able to raise a child.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See above.



As for my own personal beliefs, I believe that no intelligent force created life: it was the result a process favoring the creature most likely to reproduce. This process is not necessarily moral or immoral: it is just a process. Even if there were a creator, I do not see any reason to believe that this creator wants what is best for our children. So if we want what is best for our children, we should figure that out for ourselves.



More than ever?

Originally Posted by garysher

Such childish facetiousness on such a serious topic.............

Originally Posted by garysher

You're still pitching the same "lesser of two evils" argument