Ukip Banned From London Pride Parade, But Organisers Say Decision Is Not 'Politically Motivated' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912454]I'm not saying: "It's good because people in the past did it." That would be an appeal to tradition. I'm saying that the historical fact that marriage has been between a man and woman throughout all of human history, and across all cultures is evidence that traditional marriage is more than purely an arbitrary social construct.[/QUOTE] While that may be a historical fact, it may not be one that means anything implicitly either. I also don't think it means it's more than a purely arbitrary social contract as various different societies did prescribe to various different ideas about what constituted marriage and marriage itself has changed over time where it was once a purely economic interaction between families essentially trading people and wealth. [QUOTE]The entire reason I care so much about preserving traditional marriage is because I believe it to be absolutely essential to the continuation of our society and the values it contains, but not because of the emotions of adults. Children are the important thing to society when it comes to marriage. It seems to me that we're starting to see the effects of society losing it's value for true marriage in much of modern day Europe where they don't even have enough children to keep their society going. It's interesting to note that those who hold most tightly to the idea of traditional marriage (Mormons, for example) are not only continuing their values, but are growing to overtake other values.[/QUOTE] I don't think we really have to worry about that that much. People will continue to have children. Making marriage a more equal affair wouldn't really effect that, I truly believe that. Having many children is not neccesarily a good thing. Having 10 kids may seem great for the species, but is it? Do we gain anything from that many children needing two parents to split up that much time? Wouldn't a problem be solved in part by letting gay couples marry, and adopt and raise kids? Just because people have lots of kids, doesn't mean they added anything to us by having those children. [QUOTE]I don't argue that people are gay by choice. Even if nurture plays a roll in one's sexuality, I wouldn't go so far as to say people choose to be gay.[/QUOTE] That's good for you but I believe a lot of christians do believe it to be a choice and do treat them like they're deciding to be an "abomination".

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912454] The entire reason I care so much about preserving traditional marriage is because I believe it to be absolutely essential to the continuation of our society and the values it contains, but not because of the emotions of adults. Children are the important thing to society when it comes to marriage. It seems to me that we're starting to see the effects of society losing it's value for true marriage in much of modern day Europe where they don't even have enough children to keep their society going. It's interesting to note that those who hold most tightly to the idea of traditional marriage (Mormons, for example) are not only continuing their values, but are growing to overtake other values.[/QUOTE] Developed societies tend to have lower birth rates, which is a natural development. Mormons also uptake greatly to propagate their views, which is a requirement in their culture. Other examples are mostly located in developing countries where multiple children would be seen as a benefit. Either way, this doesn't explain how denying marriage to homosexuals somehow improves heterosexual sex drive (which one again, to quote Thisispain, creates children, not marriage).

Mormons also have things like the FLDS where people like Warren Jeffs had 70 odd wives and was one of many people who had that similar situation. I mean if we calculate that into it, sure, we'll see a high birth rate, but is that a good thing when it involves the idoctrinated rape of young women?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47912465]While that may be a historical fact, it may not be one that means anything implicitly either. I also don't think it means it's more than a purely arbitrary social contract as various different societies did prescribe to various different ideas about what constituted marriage and marriage itself has changed over time where it was once a purely economic interaction between families essentially trading people and wealth.[/QUOTE] While lots of things have changed about marriage, the one thing that hasn't changed is that it's been between a man and a woman, and that's the point I'm making. The fact that other things about it have change is irrelevant. Interestingly, the fact that lots of things have changed, but this one thing has stayed the same, seems to strengthen my point. While other parts of marriage may be arbitrary social construct, this one part seems not to be. [QUOTE]I don't think we really have to worry about that that much. People will continue to have children.[/QUOTE] Honestly, why do you believe that? All the evidence seems to point out that modern western society is not going to replace itself over time and will be replaced by other societies with different values. [QUOTE]Making marriage a more equal affair wouldn't really effect that, I truly believe that. Having many children is not necessarily a good thing. Having 10 kids may seem great for the species, but is it? Do we gain anything from that many children needing two parents to split up that much time?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about societies and cultures, not humanity as a whole. I have no doubt that people will continue to have children. I have a lot of doubt if modern western society that has led to more freedom than has ever been experienced in human history will continue to have children. [QUOTE]Wouldn't a problem be solved in part by letting gay couples marry, and adopt and raise kids? Just because people have lots of kids, doesn't mean they added anything to us by having those children.[/QUOTE] By doing that we would be fully admitting that marriage is no longer about having children and continuing our society. [QUOTE]That's good for you but I believe a lot of christians do believe it to be a choice and do treat them like they're deciding to be an "abomination".[/QUOTE] I agree that many Christians do believe that, and I discuss it with them whenever I can. From my experience, most Christians are quick to change their opinion once they see how little Biblical support they actually have.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912522]While lots of things have changed about marriage, the one thing that hasn't changed is that it's been between a man and a woman, and that's the point I'm making. The fact that other things about it have change is irrelevant.[/quote] Just because something has been around for a long period of time, doesn't make it good. THAT is in fact, trying to appeal to tradition. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912522] Interestingly, the fact that lots of things have changed, but this one thing has stayed the same, seems to strengthen my point. While other parts of marriage may be arbitrary social construct, this one part seems not to be. [/quote] It hasn't changed, because of people like you. You are literally part of the problem. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912522] Honestly, why do you believe that? All the evidence seems to point out that modern western society is not going to replace itself over time and will be replaced by other societies with different values. [/quote] That's a paranoia about something that would only happen in hundreds, if not thousands of years, if even happen. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912522] I'm talking about societies and cultures, not humanity as a whole. I have no doubt that people will continue to have children. I have a lot of doubt if modern western society that has led to more freedom than has ever been experienced in human history will continue to have children. [/quote] We can also only judge this in our own times, as Western Society is currently dominant. In fact, there may be a society in the future, that is far more freedom-encompassing, much like some societies which are currently provide less freedoms than a western society were at one time, more progressive and responsive to freedom. Definitions and cultures change. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912522] By doing that we would be fully admitting that marriage is no longer about having children and continuing our society. [/quote] It's not, it never was, and I am rightfully assuming that numerous people would find your approach disgusting and belittling of them as human beings. You are literally denying the concept of love, by replacing it with an excuse for procreation.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47912494]Mormons also have things like the FLDS where people like Warren Jeffs had 70 odd wives and was one of many people who had that similar situation. I mean if we calculate that into it, sure, we'll see a high birth rate, but is that a good thing when it involves the indoctrinated rape of young women?[/QUOTE] That's the rare exception and Mormons are just one of many examples. Basically, the more important religion is to someone, the more likely they are to have kids.

If I'm to be blatantly and brutally honest, the human race could do with a generation of slower growth to help recover from clear ecological issues. But in any event many gay people want families and we don't stop straight people who have no plans on children from getting married, so to start playing with the bias that kids are the sole issue, I think we have many issues there. Primarily that while child rearing is a huge part of marriage it is not a sole purpose. And there's such a variety of options that can allow gay people to rear children that to worry about population due to gay people changing that standard on their own, I don't think that's much of an argument. So then, not to put words in your mouth, the general trend I see in these arguments after that point exchange is that gay people aren't necessarily suited to be parents. Not much of an argument as neither are straight people by any hard defined line or even a very well understood set of arbitrary ones. Gay people have been studied numerous times showing they're equally adequate parents as any given straight set of parents. So with population being able to grow die to gay people being able to raise either orphans who would otherwise not have parents at all perhaps, raise their own children through IVF, through pregnancy through a surrogate and are equally valid parents as far as research shows so I'm not sure what is really preventing you from being okay with it. Tradition seems to appeal to you so maybe it's that but I don't really want to imagine your motivations. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] I'll reply to the other post tomorrow when my eyes remain open for all of my typing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912064] Marriage is not simply a social contract. I believe it to have a true essence within the biological facts of humanity and human society. I don't believe it to have been a coincidence that essentially all, if not literally all, human society held that marriage was between a man and a woman (or multiple women). [/QUOTE] Yes it is. That is why every culture and many modern states have had or continue to have to their own views on what marriage is. In some cultures polygamy is fine, in some pedophilia and in others having an enslaved partner was just dandy. This is why definitions of marriage have evolved as the centuries have passed. This is why marriage in America and Western Europe are different. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912064]Even societies that had no problem with homosexual sex or certain same-sex relationships never came to the conclusion that same-sex relationships were equal to the marriage of a man and woman. Ancient Greece or Rome would be an example of this..[/QUOTE] Our ancestors doing it hardly justifies much. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were also genocidal societies with slave-based economies. To put this in perspective. In most cultures people generally never married outside of their class, religion and race, with it even being forbidden at times. Should we also keep this element of past cultures? I'm not historian but marriage being between men and women probably comes from states/tribes desires to have actual population growth so that they can fight wars and not get enslaves/massacred. It probably just continued on from there as a cultural norm. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912064]“I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.”[/QUOTE] I don't really understand but I would say its more like the US constitution changing to not have blacks be 3/5th a person.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912551]That's the rare exception and Mormons are just one of many examples. Basically, the more important religion is to someone, the more likely they are to have kids.[/QUOTE] The less educated someone is, the more likely they to have kids.

[QUOTE=gufu;47912166]Oh boy, is this one of those "Muslims will come to our country, breed everywhere, and Vote ISIS ito Parlament" conspiracy theories?[/QUOTE] No, it's pretty obvious that a demographic change will bring about a complete shift in a given country's culture. It should be within the state's interests to preserve its culture and heritage. [QUOTE]Your views are however, in direct conflict to a free society.[/QUOTE] Maybe your idea of a free society, your views are in conflict with my idea of a free society. Personal freedoms are cheap and if you keep piling them on they will inevitably conflict with other people's personal freedoms. [QUOTE]There is no definition of True Marriage.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]*There is no [i]secular[/i] definition of true marriage.[/QUOTE] Who said that the definition of marriage has to be purely secular? The only way that a right really has any value as inalienable is if it is objectively bestowed upon a person (the fickle multitudes are not very consistent in how they do this).

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911515] Because the state has no practical need to recognize that their butt-buddies?[/QUOTE] man this sort of thing really makes me want to start calling straight people "breeders" already [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911832]Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones, that's a pretty important difference (making sure the next generation exists is within the state's interests).[/QUOTE] Oh also please let me know if anyone finds out a truly ethical reason to have blood-related children instead of raising one of the many children that already exist in orphanages or in transient foster homes

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47913909]No, it's pretty obvious that a demographic change will bring about a complete shift in a given country's culture. It should be within the state's interests to preserve its culture and heritage. Maybe your idea of a free society, your views are in conflict with my idea of a free society. Personal freedoms are cheap and if you keep piling them on they will inevitable conflict with other people's personal freedoms. Who said that the definition of marriage has to be purely secular? The only way that a right really has any value as inalienable is if it is objectively bestowed upon a person (the fickle multitudes are not very consistent in how they do this).[/QUOTE] Would you consider encouraging desired demographics to have sex a viable way of 'preserving culture and heritage'? For instance, telling people with 'desired' traits that they must/ will be rewarded for having sex and reproducing with other people with those same traits? In addition, do you think that infertile people should be allowed to get married? They cannot produce children, and unlike homosexuals, if they are both infertile then there is no chance of even one biological parent should they choose to raise a child.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47914234]man this sort of thing really makes me want to start calling straight people "breeders" already[/QUOTE] Except there's nothing odd about heterosexuals that warrants a title other than normal. It's like coming up with a nickname for everyone who has 5 toes. [QUOTE]Oh also please let me know if anyone finds out a truly ethical reason to have blood-related children instead of raising one of the many children that already exist in orphanages or in transient foster homes[/QUOTE] Of course adoptive children need not apply to what I'm saying. My whole issue is that if homosexuals do anything but adopt they are consciously bringing a child into this world with the intention of taking it away from one of its biological parents, that's cruel and selfish. [QUOTE=gufu;47912166]Sounds fair, I'll try to do the same.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf] A recent study conducted by the CDC[/url] found that children with only one biological parent in the household are almost 5 times more like to experience adverse family experiences than children with both.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47914710][url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf] A recent study conducted by the CDC[/url] found that children with only one biological parent in the household are almost 5 times more like to experience adverse family experiences than children with both.[/QUOTE] this study seems to be accounting for stepchildren and adopted kids, not surrogate children, which is an option available that is a far different scenario than bringing a kid over from a past marriage

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47915558]this study seems to be accounting for stepchildren and adopted kids, not surrogate children, which is an option available that is a far different scenario than bringing a kid over from a past marriage[/QUOTE] It expressly talks about kids with one biological parent in the household as well.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47915814]It expressly talks about kids with one biological parent in the household as well.[/QUOTE] Not sure if you actually read more then what you posted (only first page was accessible to me with the link, so i looked it up myself) but there is a section in the lower mid section on page 8 where the define the term "Number of parents in household" [quote=Article] "Children were categorized as living with both biological parents, living with one biological parent or loving with no biological parents. Children living with step or [I]adoptive[/I] parents were excluded" [/quote] The study isn't looking at adoption, and at the same time saying that foster homes increase the chance of a shitty family life (adverse family events)

[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;47916319]Not sure if you actually read more then what you posted (only first page was accessible to me with the link, so i looked it up myself) but there is a section in the lower mid section on page 8 where the define the term "Number of parents in household" The study isn't looking at adoption, and at the same time saying that foster homes increase the chance of a shitty family life (adverse family events)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47914710]Of course adoptive children need not apply to what I'm saying. My whole issue is that if homosexuals do anything but adopt they are consciously bringing a child into this world with the intention of taking it away from one of its biological parents, that's cruel and selfish.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing that makes a biological parent better than an adoptive one. Being born to a surrogate doesn't disadvantage you in any way whatsoever. All that's ever been proven to matter is actually having guardians who are there and not shit.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47916931]There's nothing that makes a biological parent better than an adoptive one. Being born to a surrogate doesn't disadvantage you in any way whatsoever. All that's ever been proven to matter is actually having guardians who are there and not shit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf] A recent study conducted by the CDC[/url] found that children with only one biological parent in the household are almost 5 times more like to experience adverse family experiences than children with both.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47916955][/QUOTE] Except that in that particular case the fault is not with Adoptive parents, be they hetero- or homosexual, but in the concept of children having to realize that they have been given up by their real parents. In regards to surrogate mothers, this is irrelevant, as the family still consists of two people, and the biological mother would not be considered by a child as of any importance, because human beings do not have inherent capacity to recognize biological relation between individuals on a biologic level. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47913909] Maybe your idea of a free society, your views are in conflict with my idea of a free society. Personal freedoms are cheap and if you keep piling them on they will inevitable conflict with other people's personal freedoms.[/QUOTE] It's not an idea, it's how our society works. Your failure to understand that and your wishes to implement society where freedom fits your specific world views places your in the same niche as various anti-societal groups, like ISIS. So I think you have more problems of personal creation, than using the "Think of the Children" excuses. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] Which is not to say that you specifically go out and behead nonbelievers and throw gays off the buildings, but you are specifically working towards a society that would allow that.

[QUOTE=gufu;47917472]Except that in that particular case the fault is not with Adoptive parents, be they hetero- or homosexual, but in the concept of children having to realize that they have been given up by their real parents. In regards to surrogate mothers, this is irrelevant, as the family still consists of two people, and the biological mother would not be considered by a child as of any importance, because human beings do not have inherent capacity to recognize biological relation between individuals on a biologic level.[/QUOTE] I've said time and time again that I'm not talking about adopted kids, I'm talking about children that have been conceived through some form of surrogacy where they will not be raised by one of their biological parents. The study I posted shows that any family structure that does not consist of both biological parents will put the children within at a disadvantage. Also you have yet to show any proof that babies are incapable of recognizing one or both of their biological parents, though the CDC's results certainly seem to be contradicting your position. [QUOTE]It's not an idea, it's how our society works. Your failure to understand that and your wishes to implement society where freedom fits your specific world views places your in the same niche as various anti-societal groups, like ISIS. So I think you have more problems of personal creation, than using the "Think of the Children" excuses.[/QUOTE] Our society works off of ideas, any society does; I actually do understand the ideas behind our society, I just reject a lot of them. I'm not against society, just against [i]this[/i] or at least many aspects of it, so to call me anti-societal is inaccurate. Also I'm not using children as an excuse, I genuinely believe that the government should make rational policy decisions, not bestowing vacuous "rights" whenever the loudest voices in the public whine for them. [QUOTE=gufu;47917472]Which is not to say that you specifically go out and behead nonbelievers and throw gays off the buildings, but you are specifically working towards a society that would allow that.[/QUOTE] Explain?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47917772]I've said time and time again that I'm not talking about adopted kids, I'm talking about children that have been conceived through some form of surrogacy where they will not be raised by one of their biological parents. The study I posted shows that any family structure that does not consist of both biological parents will put the children within at a disadvantage. [/quote] The source provided speaks of adopted children, overall, rather than just surrogates. You cannot narrow your source to a singular subject for the purpose of your argument. The document which you provided speaks of both parents being non-biologically related, while in case of surrogate parenting at least one legal parents is. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47917772] Also you have yet to show any proof that babies are incapable of recognizing one or both of their biological parents, though the CDC's results certainly seem to be contradicting your position. [/quote] [url]http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/james_and_joyce_robertson.html[/url] Sources such as this provide information on the natural development cycle of child recognition, thereby meaning that in fact, children only gain certain recognition at certain age. Therefore, a baby of certain youth will be unable to recognize it's biological mother using certain senses before such developments. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47917772] Our society works off of ideas, any society does; I actually do understand the ideas behind our society, I just reject a lot of them. I'm not against society, just against [i]this[/i] or at least many aspects of it, so to call me anti-societal is inaccurate. Also I'm not using children as an excuse, I genuinely believe that the government should make rational policy decisions, not by bestowing vacuous "rights" whenever the loudest voices in the public whine for them.[/QUOTE] Except, that the rights are not bestowed, but extended appropriately to those whom need them, and to to whom whines. The fact that you yourself are already in access to those rights makes your position and beliefs biased in the wonderful form of "got mine, fuck you". Besides, no true individual is against every aspect of society (unless you are literally the main character of Hatred), so you can in fact be anti-societal due to only a number of rejection of societal rules and concepts. The fact that you often demand that society fits your views only adds to the fact that you are an outsider to what you want to control. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47917772]Explain?[/QUOTE] You have shown much interest in forcing your backwards way upon the society.

-snip mistake-

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47916955]The CDC study[/QUOTE] I feel like you've got a correlation/causation thing going on. The paper sorts households based on the number of biological parents in the household, and not by e.g. stability of the family or the number of caregivers (biological or not). Consider some of the cases where a child is in a one-biological-parent household: - Single Parent - Single Parent, with new boyfriend/girlfriend - Remarried (e.g. step-parents) - Death of one biological parent Now, by definition, there is one case (and one case only) where both biological parents will be in the household, and that is that both parents are in the household (duh). It's no news that two-parent households are more stable and generally better environments to grow up in. Also, I may be reading this study incorrectly, but it appears that it defines an "adverse family experience" as: [quote]whether the child had experienced 1) divorce or separation, 2) death, or 3) incarceration of a parent or guardian; whether the child had ever lived with anyone who 4) was mentally ill or suicidal or severely depressed or 5) had an alcohol or drug problem; whether the child 6) ever witnessed any violence in the household, 7) was the victim of violence or witnessed violence in the neighborhood, or 8) ever suffered racial discrimination; and 9) whether the child’s caregiver had often found it hard to get by on the family’s income.[/quote] So I feel like a two-parent biological household has an inherent advantage here: By definition, 1 does not apply and 2 almost certainly does not apply. Two parent households (biological or not) will have an inherent advantage in all of the other categories. So households with two biological parents will (generally) be better, but I have my doubts that the key as to why they are better is indeed that they are the child's biological parents. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47918629] note the little bit of text underneath that states children living with step or adoptive parents were excluded, this article did not deal with adoption.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, also this. This study has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, because it contains no data related to adoption. I feel like the cases where gay couples aren't adopting are more like edge cases

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47919242]I feel like you've got a correlation/causation thing going on. The paper sorts households based on the number of biological parents in the household, and not by e.g. stability of the family or the number of caregivers (biological or not).[/QUOTE] The data was drawn from National Survey of Children’s Health, which had approximately 95'000 respondents and is considered to be representative, so statistical bias is most likely not an issue. [QUOTE]Consider some of the cases where a child is in a one-biological-parent household: - Single Parent - Single Parent, with new boyfriend/girlfriend - Remarried (e.g. step-parents) - Death of one biological parent[/QUOTE] This is a reasonable concern as using the phrase "one biological parent in household" is kind of vague and lumping in single parents would undeniable negatively impact the statistics. However, they state in their methods that such instances were excluded. [QUOTE=CDC study]Thus, children living with adoptive or stepparents have been excluded from the comparative analysis to avoid confounding the comparison or outcomes by number of parents.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Now, by definition, there is one case (and one case only) where both biological parents will be in the household, and that is that both parents are in the household (duh). It's no news that two-parent households are more stable and generally better environments to grow up in. Also, I may be reading this study incorrectly, but it appears that it defines an "adverse family experience" as: So I feel like a two-parent biological household has an inherent advantage here: By definition, 1 does not apply and 2 almost certainly does not apply. Two parent households (biological or not) will have an inherent advantage in all of the other categories. So households with two biological parents will (generally) be better, but I have my doubts that the key as to why they are better is indeed that they are the child's biological parents.[/QUOTE] Well, the fact that children are capable of at least knowing who their mothers are through scent and voice recognition implies that separating them is potentially negative for the child's development. [QUOTE]Oh yeah, also this. This study has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, because it contains no data related to adoption. I feel like the cases where gay couples aren't adopting are more like edge cases[/QUOTE] I have repeatedly stated my issue is not with adoption, in fact that's one of the only occasions where I could be convinced that homosexual couples raising kids is alright. My point in all of this is that the state has little reason to take interest in officiating gay relationships as they don't really produce anything of value in themselves, except for children who will be disadvantaged.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47927403]The data was drawn from National Survey of Children’s Health, which had approximately 95'000 respondents and is considered to be representative, so statistical bias is most likely not an issue.[/quote] I'm not concerned about statistical bias, I'm concerned about systemic bias in the study's methodology, especially relative to your misapplication of the study's conclusions. For example: [quote=CDC study]Thus, children living with adoptive or stepparents have been excluded from the comparative analysis to avoid confounding the comparison or outcomes by number of parents.[/quote] This just biases the results further in favor of two-biological parent households by preventing stable, 1-biological-1-non-biological families from counting as one-biological-parent households. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47927403] Well, the fact that children are capable of at least knowing who their mothers are through scent and voice recognition implies that separating them is potentially negative for the child's development. [/quote] Is any of this exclusive to biological mothers? Wouldn't the same apply to a non-biological mother? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47927403] I have repeatedly stated my issue is not with adoption, in fact that's one of the only occasions where I could be convinced that homosexual couples raising kids is alright. My point in all of this is that the state has little reason to take interest in officiating gay relationships as they don't really produce anything of value in themselves, except for children who will be disadvantaged.[/QUOTE] This study does not support this conclusion in the slightest

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47927503]I'm not concerned about statistical bias, I'm concerned about systemic bias in the study's methodology, especially relative to your misapplication of the study's conclusions. For example: This just biases the results further in favor of two-biological parent households by preventing stable, 1-biological-1-non-biological families from counting as one-biological-parent households.[/QUOTE] In reading into this further it seems you're right, they are talking about single parents (which seemed counter-intuitive to me initially as the issues of single-parenthood are already well-documented), I assumed when they spoke of avoiding confusion over the number of parents they meant that only two parent households were interviewed for consistency. My mistake, the vague language fooled me. [QUOTE]Is any of this exclusive to biological mothers? Wouldn't the same apply to a non-biological mother?[/QUOTE] I dealt with this in a previous post, children in the womb can discern the biological mother's voice from other voices and upon birth children can recognize certain pheromones excreted by the biological mother only. [QUOTE]This study does not support this conclusion in the slightest[/QUOTE] Well now I see it most certainly doesn't as it doesn't address children of 2 parent one biological parent households.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47927648]In reading into this further it seems you're right, they are talking about single parents (which seemed counter-intuitive to me initially as the issues of single-parenthood are already well-documented), I assumed when they spoke of avoiding confusion over the number of parents they meant that only two parent households were interviewed for consistency. My mistake, the vague language fooled me. [/QUOTE] TBH I don't feel that you even read the paper until you were called on it, but good for admitting your mistake, anyway. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47927648] I dealt with this in a previous post, children in the womb can discern the biological mother's voice from other voices and upon birth children can recognize certain pheromones excreted by the biological mother only. [/QUOTE] If you don't mind I'd like a citation of this fact, as well as evidence that it has any real implications regarding child raising, esp. past the earliest stages of infancy.

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47927729]TBH I don't feel that you even read the paper until you were called on it, but good for admitting your mistake, anyway. [/QUOTE] I already gave you the quote that muddled me up, the paper never expressly stated that the single biological parent households were single parent and in the methods it states that they tried to avoid confusion over number of parents. I made an assumption and reading into it further revealed that I was wrong, this has nothing to do with my ability to "even read the paper". [QUOTE]If you don't mind I'd like a citation of this fact, as well as evidence that it has any real implications regarding child raising, esp. past the earliest stages of infancy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The website does not expressly state that the newborn is incapable of differentiating between people at first. After doing a little bit of research I found some reliable information that contradicts your claim, [url=http://www.kangleelab.com/articles/Paper0001_0001_0028.pdf]children recognize their mother's voice[/url] (and therefore biological mother's voice) in the womb and their [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717541/]scent after childbirth.[/url][/QUOTE] I never claimed that this had to do with the child's development, I was only dispelling the claims that children had no way of knowing who their true biological parents (or mother in this case) are.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47916955]quote[/QUOTE] Your study includes children in foster care. Of course that skews the numbers when [i]"More than one-half of children in foster care had experienced caregiver violence or caregiver incarceration and almost two-thirds had lived with someone with an alcohol or drug problem."[/i] The American Academy of Pediatrics [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html]released a report[/url] (PDF) showing that whether or not the child's parents are married is what had an effect, not the sex of their parents. This suggests that the inability for gay couples to marry is what can be harmful to children, not the fact that the children are being raised by a gay couple.