Oh, Hell. Dewey, I disagree with you on the importance of gender rolemodels in bringing up children, but I for one don’t see you to be at all bigoted.
That being said, you seem to be taking your arguments in this thread straight out of the His4Ever playbook. Again, not in the department of homophobia, but more in the area of having piss-poor debating skills. Which is odd, because normally you’re one of the better debators on the boards.
You’ve made at least two appeals to invisible majorities. Which, even if true, are totally irrelevent. A majority of Americans believe in guardian angels. Doesn’t make angels real.
You say kids need a parent of each gender to teach them how their gender acts and how to act around the other gender. What, exactly, do the kids need to learn? You don’t know; you just know it exsists. Do you honestly expect anyone to accept that as a legitimate argument? That’s a bullshit answer, and you know it, or ought to. I think there are vital lessons that children can only learn by being raised by flaming drag queens. No, I don’t know what lessons, I just know they’re important. Way more important than your equally undefinable lessons.
You’re basing your arguments on intuition. You “feel” it’s true. You can certainly “feel” however you want, but since it’s a position that is inarguable, what’s the point of even mentioning it? You can’t debate a feeling, and if feelings are all you have to contribute to a debate, maybe it’d be better to just sit one out.
But I absolutely do not think you’re a bigot or a homophobe.
I haven’t responded to musicguy’s post because he’s just rehashing things that have already been addressed. Why bother? But since is seems so important to you, I’ll address the core issue.
Why do either of you think that role cannot be performed by the women in musicguy’s life? Why do you think that a mother must live within the home for the daughter to gain insight into what being a woman means? As the research I cited suggests, boys raised by lesbians have no problem learning what it means to be a man. In fact, I believe, that they may actually be better off since they don’t have as rigid roles imposed upon them.
But just for the record, I’ve not called you a bigot, Dewey. I said your position in this matter is bigoted, because you are obstinate in your opinion despite contrary evidence. Those are not the same thing. To call you a bigot is an across the board label. I am simply addressing this one issue now.
My hope, because I feel you are probably a decent human being, is that you will examine that prejudice you harbor and deal with it.
Well Dewey, your original quoting of the article was pretty inexplicable, and doesn’t seem to have any other explanation than that you think research relating to broken families relates to homosexual-couple headed families.
But then, shit, I’m drunk again, so most of the middle two pages of this thread have been swimming around the screen.
I think, for all waiting to see DCU hold up his opinion, however well anyone can support it, up against the body of evidence suggesting something else, can and should read this:
DCU, I think I see the difference between your position and bigotry. I’m not sure yet. One of the deciding factors in that (non)decision, just for shits and giggles, is that you do not actively lobby either for some sort of ban on same-sex couple adoption or against the converse (which actions are much worse, to me, than merely disagreeing with someone on a message board). And your POV is certainly preferable to someone who takes issue with the sexuality aspect or someone who is unwilling to debate at all (both of which types of people I have met in spades, unfortunately).
Don’t you see though Dewey, that if you are going to argue that one model of parenting is to be preferred over another, that you DO need to quantify just which traits etc you are referring to. Then, and only then, can you ‘qualify’ the value of one form of parenting over another. There is no ‘necessity’ to it. Either ‘put up’ (some characteristics that are only able to reproduced by male/and or female parents) or shut up.
Oh, and I’m with Miller too…I don’t think you are being homophobic or bigotted either. But if you are going to make such assertions (even here in the Pit) you have to be prepared to spell them out AND back them up, or reserve them for an IMHO thread.
Mockingbird. I think we’ve ALL done that at one time or another. Sometimes our ‘beliefs’ are based on less-than empirically adequate evidence. And I think that’s OK, for the most part…until we are called on them, as Dewey has been here.
I don’t think Dewey is lying, either to himself or us. He believes what he believes…as I said, sometimes our beliefs are not ‘rational’ in the true sense of the word. I think he is trying, very earnestly, to make sense of his belief-system in light of the argument at hand. Calling him a ‘liar’ achieves nothing, IMHO.
Well, for one thing, there is really only one woman in my life on a regular basis and she lives a few thousand miles away. My mother has long since passed from this world, although she would have loved the opportunity to help raise a child. Other than that, I have women who are friends, but none that I think would be interested in jumping in and helping to raise a child. Ditto for my SO. Granted, these are only my personal circumstances and it obviously doesn’t apply to everyone.
I don’t believe either of us have stated this. I thought I was quite clear in stating that perfectly healthy children could be raised even in the absence of one of the parental figures, as in the case of single parents. I also stated that I felt that gay people have been shown to do a great job at raising kids.
But it must be noted that neither your cite or the information from the APA says near as much about children raised by gay men.
From the APA, a similar disclaimer
While I agree with damn near everything presented in the studies mentioned, I still question whether I would be equally capable of raising a little girl as successfully as a heterosexual couple would, partially because the same body of evidence doesn’t exist for my situation and partially because I don’t feel I have the skills necessary to answer all of the questions a little girl might have or have an understanding what she feels. Perhaps I sell myself short but it is nonetheless an honest concern, and worth questioning, considering we are talking about raising a healthy, well-adjusted child. Now, if I have that concern, and my concern is based on the well-being of the child and nothing else, why is Dewey’s similar concern bigotted? He supports gay adoption, feels that gay people are quite capable of raising children, and shows no negative feelings to gay people in this thread or any other that I have ever seen. I’m having a very hard time understanding how exactly it is that he is a bigot. Rahter I think it was a knee-jerk reaction and not warranted at all. Calling people bigots who aren’t doesn’t help anyone’s cause.
If I can speak for Dewey for a second, I think that he’s not a bigot because his premises are not bigoted: he’s not saying that a gay man can’t be as good a father as a straight man, he’s saying that any man can’t be as good a mother as any woman, and that children are best served by having a mother and a father living with them. This isn’t a homophobic position, although at a stretch I suppose it could be called sexist. And I agree that the more adults living with and involved in the day-to-day care of a child, the better. But I don’t think the gender of the persons involved makes a difference, and the data (scarce as it is) seems to support me rather than Dewey.
I do want to ask Dewey if he feels that a gay man and a lesbian cohabitating in a non-romantic relationship to raise a child would be as good as a straight couple raising a child. I suspect he would say yes, everything else being equal.
This is an exactly, precisely, totally correct summation of what I’m saying. All others pay heed.
I’d even willingly accept the “somewhat sexist” label. I do think there are some basic differences between men and women. None so severe that they should prevent either gender from, say, doing a particular job, but I do believe they exist. If that’s sexist, so be it.**
You suspect correctly. I absolutely agree with that statement.
I also think we’ve found NBC’s next sitcom.
Define what you mean by “preferred.” Seeing how I’ve repeatedly stated that I don’t think there should be barriers to gay adoption, I’m clearly not talking about a policy preference.
I don’t disagree entirely with your assessment. I think the difference between me and a His4Ever is that she expects people to fall in line with her beliefs on nothing more then her say-so. I think that is staggeringly inappropriate. I’ve stated repeatedly in this thread that I make no claims to having metaphysical truth. I think I’m right, but I accept the possibility that I might be wrong.
What I object to is the notion that my sense of things must invariably be wrong because it’s intuitive, when what we’re talking about largely represents a subjective touchy-feely value judgment (I also, of course, object to the wholly unfounded bigotry accusations). As I’ve noted, the studies cited measure what is adequate, not what is ideal. The latter is a more squishy concept. It can really only be answered by intuitive values.
A comparison to debates on the existence of God is appropriate. I think God exists. I cannot prove that empirically. Much of the basis for my belief is intuitive. I would never suggest that my intuitive judgment on the existence of God is reason enough for another person to accept God’s existence.
Does that therefore mean that discussing my intuitive feeling on the existence of God is a worthless endeavor? I hardly think so. That basis isn’t enough to convince someone logically that God exists, but it might be enough to stir similar intuitive notions within that individual.
And so it goes with many things: What is the nature of justice? What is right and wrong? What do we mean when we say equality? What does it mean to exist? What is love? Who makes the best pizza in New York? And, yes, what is the best way for a child to be raised? None of those questions are subject to empirical proof, even though science may provide grist for the mill of discussion. Discussion on those topics will involve subjective judgments unsusceptible to proof. Does that mean all such discussion is worthless?
If you crawl back to my entry into this clusterfuck of a thread, you’ll see it all started with assertions by some other posters that gender was “irrelevant” to parenting. I still think that’s an inaccurate statement. But I also don’t think it’s falsifiable one way or the other. Should I therefore just not comment on it? I hardly think so. I think the discussion is worth having, squishiness and all.
Sal’s in Mamaroneck in Westchester County, you godless heathen. It stacks up with the joints in the city.
And I don’t want to hear from all you Greenwich Village types droning on about John’s. I’ve had John’s. John’s is good. Great, even. I like Sal’s better.
Wow, you’re a moron, even more so than you come across in the race threads. But i still won’t dance on your grave. Guess that makes me an IzzyR-phobe as well. Excuse me while i don’t care.
(And YOU of all people calling others bigots? YOU??? one of the racist fucks from GD? YOU??? This is the best laugh i’ve had for months! It’s like i’m still on vacation, the joy keeps coming! Why you waste your valuble humor here instead of writing for TV sitcoms is a mystery to me! Remember, homophobia as defined by not lynching dead homophobes is wrong, but calling blacks genetic morons is a-ok! Good Job!)
Tars, I’m not much concerned by your comments, and don’t need any apologies. However, I would appreciate it if you refrain from misrepresenting my positions. I have never in fact called blacks “genetic morons”. I suspect that you know this as well. Please refrain from this type of tactic in the future, even if you think you have been insulted.
(Wow … you sure are pretty thin-skinned for a homophobe …) [sub]note: the preceding sentence was a joke. The previous paragraph was not.[/sub]
I’ll back what Dewey said about Sal’s, but there’s actually a better place than that in the middle of Ossining… or outskirts. Depending on the exact kind of better. Torchia’s is the best… how to say this. Generic good old fashioned pizza, that I know of. Thick. Very good sauce. Not a crispy crust. But that’s not the best pizza. There’s a joint, I’m not sure of the name anymore, but it’s down in Ossining, past the Food Emporium, past the Getty station, opposite the lumbeyard, in a place that used to be a locksmith’s, next to the gelato joint.
Honest to god best pizza quality and fancy in Westchester, including Sal’s.
