|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GORDON 
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,08:33 |
|
   |
All other things being equal.
I don't want to hear about hetero divorce rates, "dad gets drunk and beats mommy," "two dads can be as loving as a mom and a dad,"or anything like that. Â All things being equal. Â Narrow it down to that one variable: is it better to have a mom and a dad, 2 dads, 2 moms, or does it not matter at all?
Because I think THAT is the core of the homosexual marriage debate. Â Not ignorance, not hatred, but a fundamental belief that having dual gender role models is a better situation for children. Â Our ancestors felt that to be true, for what it is worth. Â I assume that is why there are so many governmental benefits to being married. Â They are encouraging families to stay together and produce offspring, and then actually care for them. Â Adoption is great and everything but most babies are still produced with aroused penii and vaginas. Â But I am getting off track.
Is there, or is there not, a benefit to children by having those children be raised by their genetic parents?
Edited by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,08:34
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,08:48 |
|
 |
Both of those choices are irrelevant. The number of parents are FAR more relevant to raising a good child.
Good parents are based on the quality of the two parents, not on the color of their skin, their sex, etc.
I would only go so far as to say that I believe studies have shown that at certain times in a child's life it's important for them to have a strong female, and at other times, a male influence. Does that HAVE to come from a parent? I don't know.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,08:51 |
|
|
I said to keep it narrowed down to that one variable, but then you didn't.
I guess your answer is, there is no benefit?
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,09:49 |
|
|
Yeah, parents who love each other, parents who love the children, etc are >> important than sex of the parents.
So, sex of the parents - I dunno, mostly irrelevant. I really haven't seen any data on it.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,13:28 |
|
|
There are benefits to having both a female and male figure present. There are also just as many benefits to having two male figures or two female figures instead. I think there are clearly some minor differences in the nature of those benefits in all these cases, but they are there.
So, I can't answer the question as it's worded. Do I think there's a benefit to having both genders present? Yes. Do I accept the heavy-handed implication built in that this means there is somehow no or less benefit in the same-gender alternatives? No.
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,13:33 |
|
|
No one wants to let all other things be equal.
You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Cakedaddy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 6241
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,13:47 |
|
|
Holy shit dude. You are talking about parenting. How the hell do you control that experiment enough to eliminate all variables except for gender? Once you do that, you just have two 'beings' raising kids. And in that stripped down sense, no, it would not matter.
A male/male couple raising a child would have to be attentive enough to include a female in their child's life so they can get that mentoring. Cause no matter how fruity the feminine half of that relationship is, they just aren't going to get it when their daughter is having anxiety/self esteem/or whatever bullshit issues girls invent when they start having their periods for the first time. Since both sexes are built in to a hetro couple, then ya, I think it's better/easier/whatever when the parents are hetro. There's benefits to having NO women around though too, so, fuck. How the hell can this be answered? You need to provide WAY more data than "all things being equal" for us to be able to answer this. Right off the bat: Two dudes, or a man and a woman. Things are already not equal.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:05 |
|
|
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,16:49)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,15:33)
QUOTE No one wants to let all other things be equal.
You would make poor scientists. Â You just don't want to eliminate variables. When you eliminate the extra variables in how you ask the question, then I'll answer it. You'd make a great pollster. Â You hide those extra variables right there in the answers.
What am I hiding? ALL things being equal. I said it at least twice in the OP.
Leisher threw me a curve ball I hadn't thought of when he mentioned single-parent homes, but then I realized ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL still counted.
I have no secret agenda, I just wanted opinions. I had no idea "all other things being equal" was such a difficult concept.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:18 |
|
|
You state in the title of the poll that it's "hetero vs homo". Â In the options it becomes "hetero is bad" or "hetero is good". The first option is clearly false for many reasons. Â The second option, once that title has been put on the poll, includes the implication that "homo" couples are less beneficial. Â That's not science, it's a pollster trick. Â Not that I think you did it on purpose.
Here, I'll ask the question of myself in a more general way, and you can decide for yourself where to put me above:
Heterosexual Parents vs Homosexual Parents
1) Heterosexual Parents provide much more benefit to children as compared to Homosexual Parents
2) Heterosexual Parents provide some minor benefit to children as compared to Homosexual Parents
3) Either there is no important difference, or both provide similar levels of benefit to children in different ways
4) Homosexual Parents provide some minor benefit to children as compared to Heterosexual Parents
5) Homosexual Parents provide much more benefit to children as compared to Heterosexual Parents
That I would answer: 3
So, where does that put me on your version?
Edited by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,14:20
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:37 |
|
|
I'm not sure how it can be a pollster trick, I gave 2 options, and it was a straight-forward yes or no option. But I never studied how to take a poll, so I dunno, maybe it is dishonest. But it seems pretty binary to me.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:39 |
|
|
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.
Which one should I have picked above, based on what you now know of my stance on the matter? Â I really can't tell.
Edited by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,14:42
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:46 |
|
|
You people make my head hurt.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2011,14:54 |
|
|
No, I mean on the original poll. Which answer fits my stance?
Based on just the answers I would say everyone would pick option 2 (with the possible exception of some extremely militant lesbians who think having a penis anywhere in the home is horrible). But based on the "vs homo" part of it I would then not be able to answer option 2 because you set it up as a binary proposition of the benefits of hetero vs homo in the title, so that picking option 2 is then saying that homo is bad, or at least not as good. So I really can't tell.
I'm honestly not trying to be a pain in the ass. And I ended up picking "Null Vote" so feel free to ignore me about it as it's now moot. 
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
