"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[Naraoia]

And yes, there have been studies done regarding the parenting ability of gay and lesbian couples. The APA states:

"beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

Thanks, that's what I needed

 

[Naraoia]

IMHO, it is better for children to be adopted by a homosexual couple than to not be adopted at all.

Good point.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Natural husband/wife relationships are the best for the nurture of children. A child needs a male and female model. I feel that in my community it should be wrong for two guys to adopt. It is one thing if a spouse dies. It is another to artificially construct a two male or two female family to raise children. Sterile people cannot be easily discovered unless one does a lot of comprehensive medical testing. Healthcare is already stretched to the limit. two males or two female combinations cannot, do not, never have produced babies. This is a known fact --- both observable medically, historically, and religiously.

Lets say a couple knew one or both were sterile, would you be against their marriage?

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually, they have been several studies on the subject. Here is one: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php

IMHO, it is better for children to be adopted by a homosexual couple than to not be adopted at all.

Number one:

"The body of research is limited...."

Number two:

It is not suggested that children do better in homosexual environments than in heterosexual ones.

 

[LittleNipper]

Lets say a couple knew one or both were sterile, would you be against their marriage?

They might know ---- how would I know?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Number one:

"The body of research is limited...."

Number two:

It is not suggested that children do better in homosexual environments than in heterosexual ones.

I'd bet they'd do better in either environment than an orphanage.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'd bet they'd do better in either environment than an orphanage.

Very few children end up in an orhanage as the result of the death of both parents. Most are the result of illegitimate births. So again, marriage is the answer. No pre-marital sex is the answer.

 

[Naraoia]

The BIG problem that you are not being told is that HIVis not the major concern. HIV destroys the body's ability to fight diseases. The person infected dies as a result of a secondary infection. The problem comes that people with HIV spead dangerous communicable diseases that were once almost gone from the general population. Healthy people can contract Tuberculosis from a coughing AIDs patient.

They can also contract it from the drunken homeless wreck of a man on the bus, or the unfortunate neighbour. Do you have any evidence that (1) TB is on the rise and (2) the rise of TB is connected to AIDS in any way? Why would you contract an infection from an AIDS sufferer any easier than you would from a random person with the same infection?

The same is true of Pneumonia, etc...

I don't see how healthy people are endangered by them any more than they are endangered by any other person with ordinary pneumonia. My mum had pneumonia 11 times and I don't think she contracted any of those from AIDS sufferers.

A healthy person can die of Tuberculosis if not immune.

A healthy person can die of influenza too. So?

In fact these diseases (once rare) are becoming very widespread.

Once again: source? Any proof that this has anything to do with HIV or homosexuals?

So the homosexual can harm others inadvertantly through his actions.

So can the poor African mother, the patient who got an infected blood transplant, the drug addict who used an unlucky needle etc. And the countless other non-AIDS people who carry diseases they may not even know of. Why make homosexuals scapegoats?

No one is an island.

One thing we agree on.

 

[TheOutsider]

Number one:

"The body of research is limited...."

Maybe you should have included the rest of that paragraph:

Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.

 

[Naraoia]

It is not suggested that children do better in homosexual environments than in heterosexual ones.

Who argues they would do better, and why should we require that anyway?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

They might know ---- how would I know?

They told you.

The specifics are unimportant, I just want to know if you are against the principal of people (heterosexual) unable or unwilling to procreate getting married.

 

[Naraoia]

Very few children end up in an orhanage as the result of the death of both parents. Most are the result of illegitimate births.

Statistics please?

So again, marriage is the answer. No pre-marital sex is the answer.

Condoms are a much simpler answer.

 

[DaveISBG]

but its on a chart so it must be true!

Never said that they where related. Only commented on the the period with the lowest percentage of national debt.

 

[necroforest]

Statistics please? Condoms are a much simpler answer.

Good point.

Condom failure rate: ~2%
Marriage failure rate (US): > 50%

 

[atomweaver]

I feel that the job of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion. Its job is not to legislate moral standards, but to allows its citizens the ability to establish their own without interference of any kind. That means that if the majority of a community of individuals are against homosexual sex, then they should be able to make it difficult for openly contrary individuals to remain part of the community.

There's a quick way to say that, LN... That's called "mob rule". Your Savior suffered under the duress of just such a system of government, and yet you'd impose it upon another fellow man? Regardless of the object of your prejudice, that's just plain wrong...
Its a position which allows you to beg off actually dealing with having certain members of your society, and as such is seems to me to be even more dishonest than the absurd attempts by other Xians to "convert" homosexual people inot heterosexuals. At least those misguided people are trying to work with their fellow citizens, as misguided as their efforts may be...

They need to find their own place and attempt to sink or swim on the merits of their own beliefs/feeling. It such does not work or causes problems for them, it is not for society at large to bail them out. The experiment proved such to be a failure and unworthy of additional consideration.

Not in this country, pal...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

 

[Loudmouth]

I feel that the job of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion. Its job is not to legislate moral standards, but to allows its citizens the ability to establish their own without interference of any kind. That means that if the majority of a community of individuals are against homosexual sex, then they should be able to make it difficult for openly contrary individuals to remain part of the community.

This is exactly how segregation was practiced. The majority of southerners felt it was ok to keep blacks out of their businesses, bathrooms, schools, etc. It was the federal government that stepped in and enforced rules that went against the majority opinion of that community. Do you think the federal government erred in doing so?

The majority should never be allowed to forfeit the rights of the minority. That is exactly what our government was set up to do, protect minority opinions. If two citizens want to enter into a legal relationship that harms no one why shouldn't they be able to? Are they to be shunned because it makes you uncomfortable?

 

[Loudmouth]

When someone says that he does not accept evolution, what he really means is that he does not accept common descent of apes and humans. I think you would be hard pressed to find a person who denies allele frequencies change over time if you explained it to him.

Without previous religious indoctrination you would be hard pressed to find someone who does not accept common ancestry between humans and other apes. The only reason that people reject the idea is because of religious dogma.

 

[atomweaver]

A hypothetical for LN to mull;

Two unrelated women are long-time friends from school. One married (a man) and had a child, the other never married. The father sadly dies. The long-time friends move in together (strictly platonic friendship) to help each other and the child through this time, and end up raising the kid to young-adulthood together. Was the child better, or worse off, for the presence of the friend?

 

[Beccs]

The greatest strides that the United States made in the past were during the terms of Presidents who did not accept evolution.

Possibly, but most of those strides have been made by secular scientists.

 

[pantsman52]

Never said that they where related. Only commented on the the period with the lowest percentage of national debt.

Why? If they aren't related, then what exactly are you trying to prove by pointing out events that were also going on at the time? You're making absolutely no sense.