Why the hate for harper?

[Argus]

Source? Sounds like a subjective personal religious belief masquerading as a statement of fact.

Lets see what some of those professionals that actually study the issue say, shall we?[

Wow. You actually put a ton of work into that. And yet, with quote after quote after quote, not one actually addressed the point made, which is that children are, all things considered equal, better off with a male and a female parent. Not one of your quotes even addressed it. They were, for the most part, left wing politically correct "gays are people too, you know, whine, whine whine!" kind of statements, mostly filled with a "gays can be good parents too" type of self righteousness.

Which is certainly true but again, doesn't even address the point AT ALL.

I didn't say gays can't be good parents. I didn't say that a kid isn't better off with two loving gay parents as opposed to say, two alcoholic straight parents who are always throwing things at each other. What I said was that it's good for a child's social, psychological and sexual development to have both male and female role models in their lives on a daily basis, as in parents of both genders.

Let's simplify this. State openly that children, be they boys or girls, have no need of a father in their lives, and that not having any male role model will have no life influence on them as long as they have a good mother. Or, if you prefer, state that children have no need of mothers, and that having no mother or other female role model will have no influence whatever in their lives so long as their father is a loving parent. ie, a girl growing up from birth with no mother is not in any way deprived, nor is a boy growing up and having no father in his life.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Argus

[jbg]

Wow. You actually put a ton of work into that. And yet, with quote after quote after quote, not one actually addressed the point made, which is that children are, all things considered equal, better off with a male and a female parent. Not one of your quotes even addressed it. They were, for the most part, left wing politically correct "gays are people too, you know, whine, whine whine!" kind of statements, mostly filled with a "gays can be good parents too" type of self righteousness.

You nailed it!!!

[dre]

He nailed nothing, and he also refused to provide a source for his assertion. Which is of course because his assertion was a faith based religious belief and those are rather hard to back up with emprical evidence.

The reality is, that according to professionals that actually deal with this issue theres simply no reason to descriminate against homosexuals or lesbians when it comes to parenting. Children with gay parents exhibit no developmental dysfunction, or added instability.

In his defense though... At least his posts had actual sentences and opinions in them, whereas you basically just showed up to stick your nose up his ass and chearlead with 4 word phrases.

[Keepitsimple]

He nailed nothing, and he also refused to provide a source for his assertion. Which is of course because his assertion was a faith based religious belief and those are rather hard to back up with emprical evidence.

The reality is, that according to professionals that actually deal with this issue theres simply no reason to descriminate against homosexuals or lesbians when it comes to parenting. Children with gay parents exhibit no developmental dysfunction, or added instability.

In his defense though... At least his posts had actual sentences and opinions in them, whereas you basically just showed up to stick your nose up his ass and chearlead with 4 word phrases.

....but he did nail it. Any dough-head knows that it's preferable to raise children with a loving mother and father than it is to have two loving mothers or two loving fathers. Call me crazy but I think that's why we have males and females. No religious belief required there.

[dre]

....but he did nail it. Any dough-head knows that it's preferable to raise children with a loving mother and father than it is to have two loving mothers or two loving fathers. Call me crazy but I think that's why we have males and females. No religious belief required there.

Any dough-head knows that it's preferable to raise children with a loving mother and father than it is to have two loving mothers or two loving fathers.

Ah yes, the good old "Everyone knows that!" fallacy. How about provide real evidence for your assertion or admit you're just guessing?

If seems like you guys figure that repeating something over and over again make it true, but you refuse to provide any evidence at all. If hetero parents are better then you should easily be able to provide a link to a credible study that shows this. But from what I can tell theres nothing to support this. The people who actually study this subject claim that children of same sex parents show no development disfunction at all whe compared to children of heterosexual parents.

Ill ask you guys now for about the fourth time... do you have any real evidence at all that shows children are significantly better off with heterosexual parents than same sex ones?

[Shakeyhands]

But I would definately not want to see religious hardliners and fundies in government.

Too late....

[Dave_ON]

Plus, straight men and women who have families have an extra responsibility to be monogamus. The hedonists have no such added sense of obligation.

yet oddly enough 38% of all marriages end in divorce at an average of 14.3 years of marriage within the first 30 years. (source http://www.canada.com/life/Divorce+rate+Canada+lower+than+previously+thought/2245611/story.html)

So I guess for roughtly 38% of Canadians kids are not a sufficient reason to remain together. Of those divorces the leading cause is extramarital affairs roughly 28% (ie. men are "sluts" as was my original assertion) 65% of marriages where extra-marital affairs occur end in divorce thus bumping the number of men sleeping around over all.

98% of Men have frequent fantasies involving a person other than there spouse (compared to 80% of women which I thought was surprisingly high). This serves to underscore what I've said all along, men by their nature are not monogomous creatures, pragmatism dictates that most men have to be monogomous. So while it is their nature to want to sleep around, they don't/can't always act on it. As Argus pointed out women are the reason straight men aren't as sluty as they apparently want to be. Take women out of the equation and of course all hell breaks loose.

[Dave_ON]

I don't want to convince you. We're all entitled to our observations and opinions.....and mine is that there is a much higher percentage of gratuitous sex in the Gay community than there is in the heterosexual community.

Why on earth do you think that AIDS was - and still is to some extent - devastating the Gay community? Your use of Hollywood as an example of what goes on in mainstream society is humorous - just sit back and enjoy the movies - but don't get too caught up in them.

There are of course other factors and AIDS occurs in other cultures for other reasons. For instance, in sub saharan Africa the AIDS is so widespread it isn't broken down by sexual preference as it is in NA. Also there is a disparity in the transmission methods. Anal sex, wether gay or straight is the highest risk type of contact, vaginal is second and is considered a moderate risk, then oral is relatively low risk. AIDS is a low hanging fruit argument and doesn't even begin to address my original assertion.

As for popular culture not being representative of modern culture I don't know what to say other than it's not the 60's anymore. My best guess is based on the fact that you remember the 60's with crystal clarity that would mean you're somewhere in your late 50's early 60's. Not precisely the best judge of current pop culture. Nor are those that are 50+ considered a target market for most current pop culture. Music, movies, TV shows, internet websites are all made by people that are part of the general culture at large. If gratutitous sex wasn't a successful marketing tool, wouldn't logic dictate it would cease immediately?

[wyly]

98% of Men have frequent fantasies involving a person other than there spouse (compared to 80% of women which I thought was surprisingly high). This serves to underscore what I've said all along, men by their nature are not monogomous creatures, pragmatism dictates that most men have to be monogomous. So while it is their nature to want to sleep around, they don't/can't always act on it. As Argus pointed out women are the reason straight men aren't as sluty as they apparently want to be. Take women out of the equation and of course all hell breaks loose.

there's a reason why my daughters refer to men as "man ho's"...and all those men who cheat are cheating with- women...

we think of men as the cheating bastards but women are guilty as well...

[Argus]

He nailed nothing, and he also refused to provide a source for his assertion. Which is of course because his assertion was a faith based religious belief and those are rather hard to back up with emprical evidence.

It has nothing to do with faith. I haven't been in a church, other than for weddings and funerals, in decades. It has to do with common sense, life experience, and people I know who grew up without a father or a mother in their lives. As for why I didn't "source" my assertions, I didn't have the time to do a pile of research, nor is this topic so important to me I'm going to spend hours rounding up quotes for you.

The reality is, that according to professionals that actually deal with this issue theres simply no reason to descriminate against homosexuals or lesbians when it comes to parenting. Children with gay parents exhibit no developmental dysfunction, or added instability.

All they said is gays can be loving parents, and "can" raise children as well as straight people can. None of them addressed the big green elephant in the room, though, and neither have you. I presented it very simply. Tell me, do children have no need of mothers, or do they have no need of fathers. Do you know any little girl without a mother in her life who isn't wistful about what it would be like to have a mother?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Argus

[Guest TrueMetis]

So I guess for roughtly 38% of Canadians kids are not a sufficient reason to remain together. Of those divorces the leading cause is extramarital affairs roughly 28% (ie. men are "sluts" as was my original assertion) 65% of marriages where extra-marital affairs occur end in divorce thus bumping the number of men sleeping around over all.

Women cheat just about as much as men do. My link

According to Dr David Holmes, a psychologist at Manchester Metropolitan University, women are having more affairs than ever - recent studies say the figure is around 20 per cent for men and a bit over 15 per cent for women...

[Sir Bandelot]

98% of Men have frequent fantasies involving a person other than there spouse (compared to 80% of women which I thought was surprisingly high).

Surprising to you, maybe. Likely the number is even higher, and some of those women are just too "nice" to admit it.

Probably everyone has fantasies. We can't always control the thoughts that come out of the more primal parts of our brains. The difference is in how many are unable to resist and willing to act upon them.

Take women out of the equation and of course all hell breaks loose.

Uhh, no, ...

[Keepitsimple]

Ill ask you guys now for about the fourth time... do you have any real evidence at all that shows children are significantly better off with heterosexual parents than same sex ones?

Sorry but the onus is the other way around......and until gay couples raise kids over many generations, we'll never really know how much children will be deprived.......or are you privy to centuries of statistics that I might not be aware of? It is not a "guess" that in general, loving heterosexuals offer more to children than do loving Gays. It's the other way around.....the survival and flourishment of the Human Race has proven that heterosexual parenting works.....Gay parenting has no extensive track record and indeed, it is nothing but a guess - and with barely a decade or two of adoption history - it's a very poor guess.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

He nailed nothing, and he also refused to provide a source for his assertion. Which is of course because his assertion was a faith based religious belief and those are rather hard to back up with emprical evidence.

I am not particularly Biblical.

But why, oh why do precious few mammals feature homosexual couples raising their young? Any insight into that?

I thought Argus' statement was quite apt. Most of the sources that he was attacking were making statements along the lines of "gays are human too".

[jbg]

What does any of this back and forth on bizarre patterns in parenthood have to do with "why the hate for Harper"?

[Smallc]

But why, oh why do precious few mammals feature homosexual couples raising their young? Any insight into that?

Well, I don't know of many other mammals that have things such as adoption. Many animal species do though, practice homosexuality.

[Molly]

But why, oh why do precious few mammals feature homosexual couples raising their young? Any insight into that?

What?

First... perhaps we should figure out why so few mammals feature couples parenting!

[dre]

It has nothing to do with faith. I haven't been in a church, other than for weddings and funerals, in decades. It has to do with common sense, life experience, and people I know who grew up without a father or a mother in their lives. As for why I didn't "source" my assertions, I didn't have the time to do a pile of research, nor is this topic so important to me I'm going to spend hours rounding up quotes for you.

All they said is gays can be loving parents, and "can" raise children as well as straight people can. None of them addressed the big green elephant in the room, though, and neither have you. I presented it very simply. Tell me, do children have no need of mothers, or do they have no need of fathers. Do you know any little girl without a mother in her life who isn't wistful about what it would be like to have a mother?

All they said is gays can be loving parents

No... They said children of gay parents show no sign of developmental dysfunction, and that theres no reason to descriminate between a gay couple and a hetero couple in terms of raising children. You didnt even READ any of the quotes.

As for why I didn't "source" my assertions

Maybe when you pull a brazen assumption like "Every psychologis on earth thinks ____" out of your ass you should be prepared to back it up?

None of them addressed the big green elephant in the room

Yes almost all them addressed it and the big green elephant is entirely a figment of your imagination.

Do you know any little girl without a mother in her life who isn't wistful about what it would be like to have a mother?

ROFLMAO. So now the standard is "being a little wistful"???? No sorry... thats not gonna cut it. The standard is whether or not theres a significant different between gay and straight relationships in their capacity to raise well adjusted, happy, and well developed child, and you havent shown one iota of evidence that there is.

It has nothing to do with faith. I haven't been in a church, other than for weddings and funerals, in decades.

I dont mean faith in terms of "church". I mean it in terms of you having a believe that no evidence exists to support.

[wyly]

Well, I don't know of many other mammals that have things such as adoption. Many animal species do though, practice homosexuality.

well there domestic examples of adoption the opportunities for that in the wild would be infrequent but there are documented cases of human children being adopted into dog packs...and homosexual animal couples that raise young, those with homosexual parents have a higher rate of survival than heterosexual couples, the example I'm thinking of is a goose where a pair of bonded males one female...and among simpler human societies a family with homosexual members will increase thier odds of survival as well as they act as a 2nd mother or father...

[Argus]

No... They said children of gay parents show no sign of developmental dysfunction, and that theres no reason to descriminate between a gay couple and a hetero couple in terms of raising children. You didnt even READ any of the quotes.

There are so few children being raised by gay couples, and the concept is relatively new enough that there are very few scientifically credible studies on how they turn out. In fact, I'm not away of ANY. Perhaps you are? There are number of studies on the effects of fatherless families which show a number of problems, including higher suicides, criminal activity, trouble in identifying appropriate gender roles, lower educational achievements, etc. The difficulty is most of these are on broken families and often single parent (mother) families. Still, it's not hard to demonstrate that the absence of a father is important in a boy's life, and will have an influence on his social and emotional development, just as the absence of a mother will do the same. You don't seem willing to actually argue the point, instead glossing over it by again suggesting the "experts" have no trouble with it. But their generalized support for gay marriage doesn't mention gender roles and the abscence of fathers/mothers.

So again, do you think fathers or mothers are unnecessary, and their absence makes no difference in a child's life.

[wyly]

What?

First... perhaps we should figure out why so few mammals feature couples parenting!

some give no parental support, others one parent, some two parents, others three and still others an entire family group or herd...what ever works for the species in question...

[dre]

There are so few children being raised by gay couples, and the concept is relatively new enough that there are very few scientifically credible studies on how they turn out. In fact, I'm not away of ANY. Perhaps you are? There are number of studies on the effects of fatherless families which show a number of problems, including higher suicides, criminal activity, trouble in identifying appropriate gender roles, lower educational achievements, etc. The difficulty is most of these are on broken families and often single parent (mother) families. Still, it's not hard to demonstrate that the absence of a father is important in a boy's life, and will have an influence on his social and emotional development, just as the absence of a mother will do the same. You don't seem willing to actually argue the point, instead glossing over it by again suggesting the "experts" have no trouble with it. But their generalized support for gay marriage doesn't mention gender roles and the abscence of fathers/mothers.

So again, do you think fathers or mothers are unnecessary, and their absence makes no difference in a child's life.

First of all... youre the one that started making claims about what experts say... not me. You said "Every pshycologist in the world agrees with you". I tried to find out what the real position of experts in various related fields was on the subject of same sex parents. The consensus is that while there may be some differences theres absolutely no good reason to discriminate against gays, and that there are no issues with developmental dysfunction specific to same sex parents.

So if its a factor its a very small one thats not really worth considering. The factors that are much more important are the character of the parents, their ability to provide for children, the stability of their relationships, level of responsibility, absense of substance abuse probems etc etc etc. Gender is simply not an important factor.

[jbg]

Again I ask, what does bizarre organzation of parenting and family units have to do with the hate for Harper?

[Steveaustin1971]

This isn't a case of executive priviledge. There were national security concerns, which have been worked out. ToadBrother's under the impression that Parlaiment can snap its fingers, and any national security issues are thrown out the window. All over information the opposition wants for political purposes. They couldn't give a crap about the Canadian military.

In fact, they want it to smear the Canadian military.

National Security? And you think Parlement isn't cleared to see matters of National Security? No one has said it would all be made public, Harper is refusing to divulge national security matters to people that are CLEARED to see this type of material. What it comes down to for him and his party is this: He is twisting the rules to his own detriment, therefore what is he hiding?

[Alta4ever]

National Security? And you think Parlement isn't cleared to see matters of National Security? No one has said it would all be made public, Harper is refusing to divulge national security matters to people that are CLEARED to see this type of material. What it comes down to for him and his party is this: He is twisting the rules to his own detriment, therefore what is he hiding?

Don't you know parliament is a sieve, its unable to keep any secrets. They are always chattering away.