That sound unfair indeed (although I do not know the details), but as you say, the cause of that does not have to mean homosexual parents are privileged.
Rick, here is a link to a report by the American College of Pediatrics about their views on children raised by gay parents. To sum it up, the report admits that there have not been enough long-term studies, but from the data available, this organization believes a child is better off with heterosexual parents.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063
I will happily search out and provide other organizations and studies which believe the same, but of course the other side to the argument will be able to find articles and such to counter. So I think it can best be said that there is disagreement on the issue but that there most definately is evidence that supports what was said earlier here.
Your "organization" is very suspect being established in 2002.
It could be that homosexual adoption wasn't popular before then?
Interesting article indeed.
I am not trying to convince anyone here that what I believe about children being better off with a mother and father is right or wrong. I am afraid this is an issue we will probably forever disagree about. I am just pointing out that there are studies and organizations that make the claim. As I said, I am sure there are just as many organizations and studies that will take the opposite view.
As for your comment about the age of the organization, I really don't see what that has to do with a whole lot. I guess if we discounted studies done by new organizations that we would have had to ignore things stated by the ACLU when they were "new", the NAACP when they were "new" and so on and so forth. How about ignoring the Gay and Lesbian alliance statements because after all, that organization is relatively "new". Or do we just ignore things from new organizations that cite studies you disagree with?
Read their "position" and you'll see they have an agenda. They are remiss in providing any real data on their claims nor do they give any links to any bonefide studies. The bibliography presented is mostly hopelessly out-of-date, some of them over twenty years old.
Yes, I can see where there stated goals would be offensive to some. Here is the quote from the site.
"The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being." We promote "a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly." The College further notes, "that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being"
Oh, come on -- this is out of context to their entire agenda which is obviously biased. Trying to make it look like an organization which is endorsed by an large group of physicians is laughable.
They're aping:
http://www.aap.org/
57,000 member
So transparant and yet some will say Saran Wrap is opaque.
Look, I am not trying to convince you or anyone that a viewpoint I happen to hold is more valid than your viewpoint. We both hold our views and us arguing back and forth will not change anyone's mind.
Someone's earlier post made a statement about what is best for children. That statement was questioned based upon no evidence. In the limited time I had, I posted the first source I came up with that concluded the same as the poster only to point out that there are studies which have concluded that children are better off with a mom and dad than with a gay couple (or a single parent for that matter). I am not here stating that this organization is or should be the definitive word on this matter, just that it is an example that can be cited to back up the belief stated.
But if I use your apparent reasoning, I should ignore comments by any gay/lesbian organization because they naturally have an agenda. Right? Does your argument not cut both ways?
I personally think every organization has an agenda, either evident or hidden. So I guess in all cases it would be best to ignore all groups spouting their views and just stick with what I believe based on my moral values and common sense.
Rick, the fact that there is different treatment based on prejudices is not relevant to this discussion. Most people are subject to prejudice--fat people, short people, bald people, etc. etc. etc.--and that should not be relevant to this discussion either. Cultural bigotry is slow to die but it does die in the face of reasonable facts and discourse.
It is no more reasonable for gay persons to ask the heterosexuals to dismantle a useful and effective cultural institution to include them when they technically do not qualify for it than it is for heterosexuals to say homosexuals should not enjoy the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, shared insurance, etc. enjoyed by married couples.
Everybody can have it the way it should be if only the gay community will just pick a different word. I don't think that is too much to ask.
The gay community doesn't try to camoflauge their agenda by presenting it as some legitimate "organization." If I were the American Academy of Pediatricians, I'd not be happy about this deception. It's a free country and that means your free to believe anything one wants to believe even if naive.
Here's an example of their obvious agenda:
http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=2920801063&CONTEXT=cat&cat=12
Nowhere on the site will they quote how many members they actually have. Would you try to find a pediatrician using this site or the legitimate site?
McGentrix wrote:Why are gay rights more important than hetero rights?
Hetero people want marriage to be between a man and a woman. Why must that be infringed upon by homosexuals?
SOME hetero people are obsessed with that. Most of us couldn't care less and feel, probably rightly, that there are more important things to worry about.
No ones rights are being threatened, but I think it's safe to say that some extremely rigid types are feeling thrust out of their comfort zone and they are frightened.
heh heh heh..... he said thrust......
Foxfyre wrote:PD I made my argument quite well in my initial post on this thread.
Gay people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people do now.
You have repeatedly suggested that two gay men would have the right to marry each other while two hetero men would not have the right to marry each other. This is the assertion I am challenging. If this were in fact the case, then under the current laws a gay man and a lesbian would not be able to marry.
I don't understand the reasoning PD.
My problem with the idea of 'gay marriage' is that it becomes a 'special right' when it is limited to gay couples and not extended to everybody. Consider two heterosexual guys who have been long time roommates and are best friends. They could also benefit from right of inheritance, hospital visitation, shared insurance, etc. The law currently certainly does not say a gay man and a lesbian cannnot marry.
The only requirement now for two people to marry is that one legally be a man, one legally be a woman, neither be already married, both be of legal age, and that they not be closely related. The law does not address sexual orientation, whether the couple even likes each other much less loves each other, whether they are religious or not, or whether they share any values at all.
The law as it is written now is equal opportunityfor everybody. I think it should be left equal opportunity for everybody.
I do think there should be a new law providing for a civil union for all people, gay and straight, who do not qualify for marriage but who would benefit. That law would also be equal opportunity for everybody and it could be just as beautiful and meaningful as the traditional marriage ceremony.
Fox - I guess for the homosexual and liberal community that is too difficult to understand. A union by any name other than a marriage is not a marriage apparently.
patiodog wrote:Foxfyre wrote:PD I made my argument quite well in my initial post on this thread.
Gay people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people do now.
You have repeatedly suggested that two gay men would have the right to marry each other while two hetero men would not have the right to marry each other. This is the assertion I am challenging. If this were in fact the case, then under the current laws a gay man and a lesbian would not be able to marry.
Two hetero men would not have the right to marry? What am I missing here? I try to keep up with the news but the rash of heterosexual men trying to marry...well I've missed that story. What's the debate here?
I don't know of any heterosexual men or women wanting to marry each other. I do know of heterosexual men and women who are roommates who would benefit greatly from the right to hospital visitation to take care of each other, who would benefit from shared insurance policies, etc. Isn't this what the gay community says they are missing by not being able to 'marry'?
So lets make it possible. Not just for gays but for everybody. Just leave traditional marriage alone. Pick another word for it.
That should accomplish what everybody needs and there should be little resistance.
