From Hamish’s post:
“One of our local weeklies, the Voir, did an excellent job of debunking the gay-parents-create-gay-children myth about a week after that thread vanished from GD.”
Emphasis mine.
Ahhh! Wee fandom! Run away! Run away!
Esprix
No–instead of the vagina-needlework option, I got the vagina-cookie baking option.
On the lethimstay case-my mother saw that on Rosie’s special on tv. She was reduced to tears-and saying how awful it was that people were trying to take these kids away from these men-no one else wanted to take care of these children but this couple. How beautiful is that?
I just mean, I can’t ask my dad questions about menstruation-for one thing, he’s really embarassed by it. Plus, I mean, I’d feel more comfortable asking a woman, because she has EXPERIENCED this. Let’s face it guys-I know you’re sympathetic, but like, Mom knows exactly what cramps feel like and all that.
That’s all. Sometimes, I just want to talk to my Mommy!
But I am NOT NOT NOT saying that gays should not be allowed to adopt. You know that!
Yea, because we all know that those of us who are having casual sex right now are in the exact phase of our lives where we want to have kids. Also that no gay man ever changes his priorities during his life. And that all gay men are the same and constant.
In short, go away.
Do you get a toaster for turning your own kids gay, or does it have to be a non-relative?
I gotta buy some stock in small appliance companies.
(insert winkie smiley here)
Esprix, would you care to post a few of those carefully researched studies – y’know, the kind that didn’t get posted to the GD thread? So you’ll know what to avoid, skip the ones with less than 250, self-selected questionnaires, the ones that focus solely on lesbian parents, and the ones that skip their data to present an illogical conclusion. If you’ve still got a few, and could spare one of your 7.25 posts a day, I’m sure we’d all appreciate it. Perhaps you could help out the gay Quebecois mafia and find the piece from the VOIR, or even a Canadian field study, since it’s legal up there. I assume no pink-power revolution, yet?
Dangerosa, In absence of data, you wish to base your argument on assumptions and anecdotes? What already undecided faction would this convince? You may not agree with my assumptions and anecdotes – but I cite studies as well. For instance, I’m sure some of you know about the Stacey and Biblarz report from the American Sociological Review that investigated the matter. They found the existing studies to be politically neutered and to skip their findings to make sure the conclusions were happy:
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010617/63322.html
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/news13.htm
So there are indeed differences – are they worse? Better? Did they track the differences into adulthood for hundred of children? Hell, we can’t even agree here that there ARE differences. Instead we get the ludicrous and laughable arguments in this thread (Thousands of babies, languishing! Hey Gay Dad, what’s a Pussy Fart?). More differences, and people owning up to it:
Note that none of these studies nor the report says that children of gay parents have been proven to be detrimental – what they do say is the previous studies which denied differences are incorrect, differences, and quite big ones, do exist between children of gay parents and children of straight parents. That doesn’t surprise me, and I think, after the defensive atmosphere dissipates, does it many of you. Despite all the folderol, I’ll clarify one statement: a couple of honest studies that showed no detriment to adults raised by gay parents would convert me. Is that so much to ask?
For your first two posts in this thread, I wasn’t sure who your sarcasm was directed at. But it’s become clear that you are absolute ass to everyone.
Why on earth do you try to be offensive? Why do you think a gay man is any less likely to know the answer to this then a het man? (It doesn’t take first-hand knowledge to know about it) And most importantly, why would it matter?
Let’s look over some of your more objectionable arguments from that thread, shall we?
Here, you invented a “fact” about Ellen choosing to be a lesbian, and presented a completely baseless, probably invented “fact” about “some percentage of the current gay populace” and another about “some gay rights” [sic]. Then you suggested we were “using children to socially engineer gay power and acceptance”
I asked why you thought this about lesbians. You couldn’t even give me an anecdotal example, much less hard facts. As always, you’re appealing to “we all know, right?” sort-of attitude, summoning up baseless prejudices ingrained in our culture to support your argument.
(emphasis mine)
Here’s where your argument moved from “engineering social acceptance” and making kids gay to “thousands of closeted straight teens.” Here’s where your post became truly objectionable – not to mention laughable with that invented 96% rejection rate.
This argument is meant to paint fears of the straight world being overwhelmed by a flood of newly-gay children and closeted straights. Straight people living in fear, and hiding. Can straight-bashers be far behind?
It invents an us-versus-them scenario.
(emphasis yours)
First you say we aren’t “deliberately planning to out-breed straights,” but we seem (in your world) to be aware of this, and avoiding talking about this “beneficial side-effect.”
I’ll use your metaphor, here, Ace. You said, “I won’t talk about how Clinton caused 9-11” is tantamount to suggesting the same. Well, that’s what this did – you said we weren’t trying to “deliberately out-breed straights” but more or less suggested that we were.
Here you both tackle genetics and invoke nostalgia. Both tactics have been common in various racist movements of the last 150 years. Simple formula – you declare another group to be trying to over-run the majority, invent a scientific backing for your theory, and invoke nostalgia.
You have now found a way to apply a standard, and unfortunately often effective, racist argument to gay people.
Back to this thread:
Your right – “the pink menace” was a term I chose to describe your theories – taken together for what they are. The same kind of paranoid delusions that fuelled racist movements and McCarthyism.
I didn’t “invent the conspiracy.” You did. Look to your quotes above.
Also, this is the third time (if we include the other thread), where you have compared us to murderers. We, as a group, do no harm to anyone. To bring us up in the same breath as murderers, as serial killers, is inflammatory hate speech.
There is no basis for comparison between two men’s or two men’s loving relationship, and the brutal slaughter of innocent people. I will thank you not to make the analogy again.
Hah! You’re the one who makes up statistics about 96% of gay parents rejecting straight children. Don’t lecture me on factual.
You’re making an extreme argument. The onus is on you to prove it. The best you could do, in the citation department, is a review for a book, on a fundamentalist Christian website, that suggested that previous studies were flawed.
There is no basis to believe that same-sex parents bring harm to a child. Every study has come to this conclusion. Your argument is that such studies are sometimes flawed. Do you have a counter-study? No.
And as iampuhna pointed out, the article appeared a week after GD. Voir does have a website (www.voir.ca), but when I checked it, their archive-system was down.
I challenged it. You never responded.
In fact I’ve heard far more invective hurled at straight men from straight women than from lesbians. You are on their minds much less than you think.
You know what Ace—why don’t you provide a “couple of honest studies” showing detriment to the children of gay parents? The only thing I see in those articles you linked to were the findings that kids of gays
Oh the horror! Where will tomorrow’s assholes and hatemongers come from?
So no one’s going to kick Johnny’s ass for taking ballet lessons? What kind of world would that be?
I played “doctor” rather vigorously as a child with same-sex friends. I don’t see that this suggests anything more serious than that.
And the conclusion of those researchers was:
Am I the only one not understanding your purpose in using these cites to support your argument?
Also–considering your admonisment to “skip the ones with less than 250, self-selected questionnaires, and the ones that focus solely on lesbian parents” I find it Highly ironic that your cite contains conclusions drawn from pools of subjects that ALL numbered 25 or fewer, and contained only children of lesbians.
bella
Quote by Ace0 in the thread quoted by hamish:
Are you kidding me with this? Are you trying to tell me that my cousin and her partner, who spent thousands of dollars on artificial insemination will REJECT one of their babies (boy and girl twins) if they DON’T turn out to be gay? That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. They didn’t start a family just to raise “gay kids”. What’s the point of spending thousands of dollars only to disown the child because it turned out straight? After all the crap and worry and confusion my cousin went through regarding her sexuality, I sincerely doubt she would force the exact same thing on her own child. If one of their kids turns out gay, they will know how to handle it but that’s all. They are not going to feed those kids propaganda either way-gay or anti-gay. They’ll raise them with love and compassion and support them regardless of their sexual orientation (which, frankly, is nobody’s business but the individual’s)
This line of thinking makes me sick, Ace. I truly do not understand where you are coming from and why you think this way.
{hee hee!}
I love it when they dig their own graves!
Esprix
That some lesbians are separtists is not contrivertible. Such lesbians, as I’m sure you and most of the other posters know, are the subset of feminist separtists.
http://www.sapphireblue.com/dissident_feminist/factions.shtml#separatists
Hamish, unless you address the above distortion, we have nothing to discuss further.
Perhaps it has to do with the unfounded distortions of my argument? Or the personal attacks? Perhaps only one side is allowed to use sarcasm and hyperbole? Certainly, I don’t think I’ve called anyone an ass.
Hey Gay Dad, what’s a Pussy Fart?
I’m sorry if that gave you personal offense. As you might recall, I think that the SDMB members, be they gay/straight yellow/purple morlocks/oloi will already be a cut above a normal parent, though that doesn’t negate my arguments in general. I do think, however phrased, it’s a question that you might receive as a gay parent. Would you be also offended by it in that context?
First of all, studies are not necessary. I live in America, which makes me a first class citizen like everyone else. I don’t need to prove anything to you just to have the same rights you have. Second, all child rearing is social engineering. Even if all gay parents wanted to teach their children to be gay, how is any that different from Christian parents teaching their kids to be Christians in hopes of creating a world populated mostly by Christians?
Belladonna, you raised several salient points:
If I could pick through one of the more mephitic posts here, it doesn’t follow that the onus is on the status quo.
The argument has been made several times by Polycarp and others going back to the first thread, which almost feels aeons ago, that the primary goal is:
"What’s best for the children"
This has been unopposed throughout. And equally throughout, there has been a lack of proof that gay adoption is “What’s best for the children.” In effect, you’ve assumed the conclusion to your argument: “What’s best for some subset X of children is gay adoption.” This has been unsupported except by anecdote and assumption. How can you say what’s best for the children but admit you don’t know what’s best for the children. You might as well say “I don’t know why I believe this! Faith!”, yet you wish to change the status quo in any event.
By contrast, if you were arguing “This is what’s best for the gay community” starting with that assumption would be sensible and the onus would be on those who’d argue that it wasn’t the case.
Secondly, you suggest that I find the plentiful honest studies on this subject. I submit that there aren’t any because the gay community wants it that way. This whole subject has been a sticky slope – every basic, obvious point is denied, then once it has minimal acceptance, the next point is denied. It’s a dishonest debate – akin to Nixonian stonewalling. If you wish, we can both do a search for good studies over the weekend. It’s raining, so the beach may be out for me.
There’s no irony there. The anaylsis of the existing studies is saying that the data points don’t lead to the conclusions and they have insufficient to make a determination in any event. In other words, they’re dishonest twice: No conclusion should have been drawn, and if one was, it would be the opposite conclusion that was stated. This has been my frequent point throughout these meandering threads.
Fourthly, nice use of sarcasm. Glad we’re equal about that, at least. 
I don’t doubt your analysis of your friend, but you’ve taken that paragaph almost completely out of context. In that GD thread, which you’ve no doubt scoured for offensive positions, you’ll find at the bottom a part where we discussed whether being gay is biological or genentic. Short answer – no one knows for sure. When you say "Turns out gay,"do you mean you think there is a gay gene, or do you mean you think a gay environment would lead to different outcomes?
Certainly, it has been conceded, as you’d find if you read the entire thread, that a gay gene, (however IMHO unlikely) was discussed, and would solve many issues – and that the ‘non-propaganda’ household point was already brought up, and conceded as a possible net benefit as well.
Again, as an aside, I think you’ll find a concede points where they’re logically and honestly argued, but stipping paras out-of-context from other threads doesn’t help in that regard.
Thoughtfully,
Ace
So the possibility that a child might “turn out” gay with gay parents is enough to refute the allegation that a loving family with two parents of the same sex is not “better for the children” than a foster home, orphanage or living on the street? Furthermore, it would warrant barring them from adopting altogether (especially considering that, as pizza pointed out, rearing children is a right)?
Dude, yer fucked up.
Esprix
Wow, Esprix, I don’t know where to start with your post, but I’m glad you decided to stop doing your usual smile-by and help dig my grave. Find that VOIR article yet?
Huh?? What words were you trying to put in my mouth? You weren’t making much sense. Of what I understood from your post, I’d say we already covered these issues in the previous thread. And I’d say you need a much sharper shovel.
pizzabrat, same goes for you – perhaps less royally so.