The Case for the Family.

[redivider]

• Married adults have better health, live longer lives, suffer fewer accidents or injuries, experience less depression, and enjoy greater happiness than either single or cohabiting adults.[6] Health benefits are particularly pronounced for married men.[7]
• Married women experience less domestic violence than single or divorced women, and they are the victims of fewer acts of violent crime overall.[8]
• Children raised in intact, married families with their biological mother and father experience a vast array of benefits that span the age spectrum and persist into their own adulthood, including achieving literacy, avoiding teenage pregnancy and juvenile crime, graduating from high school, and attaining marital success.[9]

bullet #1: it only refers to 'married adults' so technically, a married gay couple should enjoy these same benefits. gay marriage is illegal in many parts of the US so there is no way to tell if there is any difference between a gay married couple, and a straight married couple. this is very interesting, because it blows a very big hole in it's own argument.

bullet # 2 : this point only slightly advocates the idea that women should marry. it doesn't mention if you should marry a male or a female, so it leaves the door open. even though it doesn't identify if the single or divorced woman is straight or gay, it doesn't exclude it. so basically it's saying that if a woman wants less of a chance to get abused, get married, either with a woman or man, just marry. another big HOLE in you're BOGUS argument.

bullet #3 : these factors have to do more with engaged and responsible parenting. there are plenty of cases of parents being happily married, and in love with each other, while not being good parents, and their kids turn out fucked in the head.


it's an incomplete argument, leaving out very important parts of the studies it chooses to cite. very glenn beckish of that author(to paraphrase take out of context leave out important details), but not effective against any sort of credible scientific challenge....

keep spreading you're bullshit, i'll be happy to call it out all day......

 

[redivider]

oh, and i would appreciate it if a mod reprimand rick, this ain't politics, it belongs in the spirituality/life section.

i'm a tattle-tale SO WHAT?!??! buahaha!!!

 

[RickWhite]

bullet #1: it only refers to 'married adults' so technically, a married gay couple should enjoy these same benefits. gay marriage is illegal in many parts of the US so there is no way to tell if there is any difference between a gay married couple, and a straight married couple. this is very interesting, because it blows a very big hole in it's own argument.

bullet # 2 : this point only slightly advocates the idea that women should marry. it doesn't mention if you should marry a male or a female, so it leaves the door open. even though it doesn't identify if the single or divorced woman is straight or gay, it doesn't exclude it. so basically it's saying that if a woman wants less of a chance to get abused, get married, either with a woman or man, just marry. another big HOLE in you're BOGUS argument.

bullet #3 : these factors have to do more with engaged and responsible parenting. there are plenty of cases of parents being happily married, and in love with each other, while not being good parents, and their kids turn out fucked in the head.


it's an incomplete argument, leaving out very important parts of the studies it chooses to cite. very glenn beckish of that author(to paraphrase take out of context leave out important details), but not effective against any sort of credible scientific challenge....

keep spreading you're bullshit, i'll be happy to call it out all day......

You may be right.

But as I posted directly above, and as the title of the thread implies, these points are only to make a case for intact families.

You are ASSUMING that any of this in any way means as opposed to gay couples.

Evidently, you are having trouble comprehending what you are reading and you are finding it difficult to focus on the claim that was actually made.

The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any.

What I will not accept is the argument that there is no evidence to the contrary because this isn't a logical argument regardless of who is making it.

If one wishes to make a case that the gay couple is every bit as ideal as the traditional couple, the burden of proof is on them, not the other way around. The welfare of children should not be experiemnted with based on a feel good assumption.

 

[redivider]

You may be right.

But as I posted directly above, and as the title of the thread implies, these points are only to make a case for intact families.

You are ASSUMING that any of this in any way means as opposed to gay couples.

Evidently, you are having trouble comprehending what you are reading and you are finding it difficult to focus on the claim that was actually made.

The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any.

What I will not accept is the argument that there is no evidence to the contrary because this isn't a logical argument regardless of who is making it.

If one wishes to make a case that the gay couple is every bit as ideal as the traditional couple, the burden of proof is on them, not the other way around. The welfare of children should not be experiemnted with based on a feel good assumption.

but you did post some author giving some pretty vague evidence about marriage. it was just poorly written out.

and the welfare of children argument is so ridiculous. it is the same argument used to try and silence rappers from saying nigger on records, the same argument used for the war on drugs, the same argument used against homosexuality.... it's an argument that is perfect for arguments that don't make any sense... if you try and make a logical point that refutes it, you're automatically the enemy, because of 'the welfare of the children', which is an extremely vague, and completely bogus argument.

what is welfare of children??? isn't it up to the parents to decide what's 'well' for your child?? anyways.....

 

[jeffchr]

You may be right.

But as I posted directly above, and as the title of the thread implies, these points are only to make a case for intact families.

You are ASSUMING that any of this in any way means as opposed to gay couples.

Evidently, you are having trouble comprehending what you are reading and you are finding it difficult to focus on the claim that was actually made.

The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any.

What I will not accept is the argument that there is no evidence to the contrary because this isn't a logical argument regardless of who is making it.

If one wishes to make a case that the gay couple is every bit as ideal as the traditional couple, the burden of proof is on them, not the other way around. The welfare of children should not be experiemnted with based on a feel good assumption.

so what is your point ? is this just your opinion, or are you advocating some kind of policy at some level or what ?

or did you just want to debate your opinion ?

I ask, since you insist on moving the thread away from a gay perspective, where it has been since post #2.

you say you want to make the case for "intact families". what does that mean?

i am sure once you define an "intact family", in your opinion, the obvious direction of the thread will once again focus on discrimination.

 

[jeffchr]

and what is this?

Evidently, you are having trouble comprehending what you are reading and you are finding it difficult to focus on the claim that was actually made.

The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any.

you start a thread and then dictate appropriate posts for the rest of he RIU community? sounds like you're a practicing jew to me.

 

[ink the world]

First, I am a Jew

then 1 page later "Also, I do not practice religion at all"

So which is it?

 

[dukeofbaja]

I'd like to point out the circularity in Rick's argument, one which maes it completely impossible for him to be proven wrong (if he had things his way).

Quote from RickWhite
"The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any. "

So, let's get some research done then! Oh, wait, hold on....research requires experiments, and according to Rick:

"The welfare of children should not be experiemnted with based on a feel good assumption. "

Since I am willing to bet, according to the tone of post #1 in this thread, that Rick believes our assumption that a gay couple is every bit as capable as a hetero couple in raising children is a 'feel good' assumption, then we should not experiment. But if we cannot experiment, we cannot produce the evidence. See the circularity? Reductio ad infinitum!

Of course, the evidence already exists, it has been compiled by many credible organazations, such as the APA and others. I still have seen no examples of why the APA can't be trusted. I'm still waiting.....

 

[RickWhite]

I'd like to point out the circularity in Rick's argument, one which maes it completely impossible for him to be proven wrong (if he had things his way).

Quote from RickWhite
"The question you should have raised was whether or not gay couples achieve the same dynamic that creates the advantages found in the traditional intact home. To which I would reply, that I am willing to consider the evidence if there is any. "

So, let's get some research done then! Oh, wait, hold on....research requires experiments, and according to Rick:

"The welfare of children should not be experiemnted with based on a feel good assumption. "

Since I am willing to bet, according to the tone of post #1 in this thread, that Rick believes our assumption that a gay couple is every bit as capable as a hetero couple in raising children is a 'feel good' assumption, then we should not experiment. But if we cannot experiment, we cannot produce the evidence. See the circularity? Reductio ad infinitum!

Of course, the evidence already exists, it has been compiled by many credible organazations, such as the APA and others. I still have seen no examples of why the APA can't be trusted. I'm still waiting.....

That makes no sense at all.

You do not have to do experiments to produce evidence. There are a number of states that allow Gays to adopt - eventually there will be data.

As for the time being, we have a legal standard that Courts use in all cases involving children. The Courts must always rule in the best interest of the child. Recently, a judge ruled that a kid receive cancer treatments against the religious beliefs of the family - I applaud his decision.

Conventional wisdom and a host of other evidence demonstrates that it is best when a child is raised by their natural parents. If one wishes to challenge that wisdom the burden of proof lies on them.

Until there is actual evidence in support of the claim (not absence of evidence to the contrary) is is only logical and legal to error on the side of caution with respect to the welfare of children.

Not trying to be insulting, but you don't seem to be able to process abstract ideas very well. And WTF is "reduction to infinity?" Did you mean to say "reductio ad absurdem," which is reduction to absurdity? You seem like you are using terms you don't understand and are just throwing confused and conflated ideas.

 

[jeffchr]

That makes no sense at all.

You do not have to do experiments to produce evidence. There are a number of states that allow Gays to adopt - eventually there will be data.

As for the time being, we have a legal standard that Courts use in all cases involving children. The Courts must always rule in the best interest of the child. Recently, a judge ruled that a kid receive cancer treatments against the religious beliefs of the family - I applaud his decision.

Conventional wisdom and a host of other evidence demonstrates that it is best when a child is raised by their natural parents. If one wishes to challenge that wisdom the burden of proof lies on them.

Until there is actual evidence in support of the claim (not absence of evidence to the contrary) is is only logical and legal to error on the side of caution with respect to the welfare of children.

Not trying to be insulting, but you don't seem to be able to process abstract ideas very well. And WTF is "reduction to infinity?" Did you mean to say "reductio ad absurdem," which is reduction to absurdity? You seem like you are using terms you don't understand and are just throwing confused and conflated ideas.

hey Rick, why is it most of your posts include a personal attack. are you insecure or something?

Latin Words and Phrases for Philosophy

The following listing includes words and phrases from Latin that are often found in philosophical texts. Some are commonly used in English writing, others are more specific to philosophy. This page is primarily intended to be a resource for students, especially undergraduates who might be encountering some of these words and phrases for the first time.

ad hoc - "to this" or "for this", and is used in the sense of improvised on the spot or designed for a specific, immediate purpose at hand.

a fortiori - "from the stronger". Often used to mean "even more so" or "even with stronger reasons". Often used to lead from a less certain proposition to a stronger one.

a posse ad esse - "from being able to being". Used to mean "from possibility to actuality".

...........

reductio ad infinitum - "leading back to the infinite".

...........

summum bonum - "the highest good".

tabula rasa - "scraped tablet", and usually meaning "blank slate". Used by some to describe the mind at birth, before acquiring any knowledge.

tu quoque - "you too." The logical fallacy of defending one's position merely by pointing out the same weakness in one's opponent.

 

[dukeofbaja]

Yeah, I meant to say the circularity in your reasoning lead to an infinite regress, or as I remembered it 'reduced to infinity'.

And there already is evidence, not just 'an absence of evidence to the contrary'. I am still waiting on you to disprove the entirety of the APA, other than dismissing them as 'leftist'.

And I will grant you that whatever you cited earlier in this thread, that so-called 'conventional families' (a concept which changes over time and cultures) do show a lower rate of incaceration, addicition and whatever else. But to assume that is because they came from a fatherless family is itself a logical fallacy. Having read what you said in another thread about living in Detroit and seeing the state of things over there, I would think you should be convinced of the direct correlation between socio-economic factors and rates of fatherlessness, meaning that socio-economic conditions could indeed be the actual variable that is responsible for the higher rate of 'social ills' you cite in your argument for the 'conventional family'.

I will end this by agreeing with you on the point of applauding the judge who ruled that the kid receive treatment against his family's religious beliefs. Here where I live, there was recently something in the papers about some young kid dying because his parent's religious beliefs did not allow a simple procedure. Sad, sad stuff out there

 

[RickWhite]

Yeah, I meant to say the circularity in your reasoning lead to an infinite regress, or as I remembered it 'reduced to infinity'.

And there already is evidence, not just 'an absence of evidence to the contrary'. I am still waiting on you to disprove the entirety of the APA, other than dismissing them as 'leftist'.

And I will grant you that whatever you cited earlier in this thread, that so-called 'conventional families' (a concept which changes over time and cultures) do show a lower rate of incaceration, addicition and whatever else. But to assume that is because they came from a fatherless family is itself a logical fallacy. Having read what you said in another thread about living in Detroit and seeing the state of things over there, I would think you should be convinced of the direct correlation between socio-economic factors and rates of fatherlessness, meaning that socio-economic conditions could indeed be the actual variable that is responsible for the higher rate of 'social ills' you cite in your argument for the 'conventional family'.

I will end this by agreeing with you on the point of applauding the judge who ruled that the kid receive treatment against his family's religious beliefs. Here where I live, there was recently something in the papers about some young kid dying because his parent's religious beliefs did not allow a simple procedure. Sad, sad stuff out there

The only thing consistent in all of your posts is the use of "free rolling."

Free rolling occurs when a person fails to hold fast to any cohesive logical position and instead just jumps around contradicting the other person ad hoc. You have made numerous statements that simply have no basis in fact or reality - and you attempt to use each one as a straw man.

There is no evidence at all - not a single stitch that demonstrates that children raised by homosexuals do not suffer negative consequences.

The position of the APA, is only that there is no evidence TO THE CONTRARY.

This is abundantly clear in the OPINION you posted from the APA. If there is evidence and not just opinions based on appeal to ignorance, post them. I would like nothing more than to learn this is true.

I would also be overjoyed to learn that single parent homes were just as good as traditional ones because there are so many of them and this trend may not reverse. Especially when people such as your self fight so hard to promote "alternative" living arrangements.

Fact is, there is no proof that raising a child in a frat house is harmful. There is no proof that raising a kid in a whore house is harmful. There is no proof that raising a kid in a prison is harmful.

Absence of proof is meaningless and anyone who forms an opinion based on it is a fool. And yes, the APA is full of fools.

Stop making assumptions just because they suit your pre-conceived notions. The idea that poverty causes single parent homes is so idiotic it deserves no attention. The fact that you would even imagine something so idiotic only proves that you are willing to take any position, no matter how idiotic in order to win an argument - this I call free rolling.

 

[dukeofbaja]

The idea that poverty causes single parent homes is so idiotic it deserves no attention.

Well, we are on a roll of agreeing with each other lately. It would indeed be idiotic to say 'poverty causes single parent homes', so go back and read what I wrote. I mentioned a direct correlation, which indeed there is (actually, it is an inverse relation, as when income goes up, single parent homes go down).

http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/ID_dem_marriage_low-income_6.png
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/OR_dem_marriage_low-income_18.png
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/GA_dem_marriage_low-income_18.png
http://www.sccommunityprofiles.org/scpages/graphs/scgraph3.gif
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/test062701cht1.gif
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/GA_dem_noparent_low-income_18.png

So it is clear that SES (socio-economic status) is correlated with family structure. Generally, as SES goes up, single parent homes go down. And you would have to be a fool to deny that as SES goes down, likelihood of incarceration, drug addiciton, and the rest of your 'social ills' go up. So it is not necessarily that children from fatherless or single parent homes are more likely to be incarcerated, drug addicted, mentally ill or whatever, it is in fact WAY more likely that SES is the underlying variable that explainsd it. To assume, like you do, that it is this imaginary 'conventional family' that puts children on the right path is fallacy as well. Again, there is no such thing as a 'conventional family'. The definition changes too frequently over time and across cultures.

By the way, most gay couples that adopt come from higher SES, meaning the kids they adopt usualy have all the advantages in the world. Which is probably why the APA states:

All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants.

So quit saying that the APA is just dealing with opinions (that is you). They are dealing in evidence. Read this next part carefully:

"home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."


By the way, there is plenty of evidence that raising a kid in a prison is harmful.

Again, I will wait for you to single handedly refute the entirety APA. I imagine this will be a simple task for you as they are 'full of fools' and you seem to know everything.

 

[RickWhite]

The idea that poverty causes single parent homes is so idiotic it deserves no attention.

Well, we are on a roll of agreeing with each other lately. It would indeed be idiotic to say 'poverty causes single parent homes', so go back and read what I wrote. I mentioned a direct correlation, which indeed there is (actually, it is an inverse relation, as when income goes up, single parent homes go down).

http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/ID_dem_marriage_low-income_6.png
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/OR_dem_marriage_low-income_18.png
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/GA_dem_marriage_low-income_18.png
http://www.sccommunityprofiles.org/scpages/graphs/scgraph3.gif
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/test062701cht1.gif
http://www.nccp.org/profiles/images/GA_dem_noparent_low-income_18.png

So it is clear that SES (socio-economic status) is correlated with family structure. Generally, as SES goes up, single parent homes go down. And you would have to be a fool to deny that as SES goes down, likelihood of incarceration, drug addiciton, and the rest of your 'social ills' go up. So it is not necessarily that children from fatherless or single parent homes are more likely to be incarcerated, drug addicted, mentally ill or whatever, it is in fact WAY more likely that SES is the underlying variable that explainsd it. To assume, like you do, that it is this imaginary 'conventional family' that puts children on the right path is fallacy as well. Again, there is no such thing as a 'conventional family'. The definition changes too frequently over time and across cultures.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You are simply confusing correlation with causation. The lack of the father in the home is the cause. Stuff you dream up is just that.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

You are demonstrating a complete lack of reasoning ability. Stop trying to twist the logic around to try to make it fit your pre-conceived notions. You are just being silly.

By the way, most gay couples that adopt come from higher SES, meaning the kids they adopt usualy have all the advantages in the world.

Except stability and the benefit of a roll model of each gender.


Which is probably why the APA states:

"not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded (based solely on lack of evidence to the contrary) that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

This is a fallacious position no matter who holds it. It is an argument from ignorance.

Here is a link defining the fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

If your precious APA is so objective, why are they basing their finding on specious reasoning?

The same organization promotes the fallacy that pot is a gateway drug.

 

[dukeofbaja]

I am not confusing causation with correlation, I was pointing out a correlation. You have two options: point out where I said it was causally linked, or read more carefully what I said. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.

There is no causal link between smoking and cancer, just a correlation that is as impossible to ignore as the correlation between SES and the social ills you mentioned.

Again, your ability to read for comprehension is amazingly poor. Here is what the APA says:

"home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

And where is it written in stone that a child needs a ROLE (not roll) model of each gender? A child needs an environment that nurtures their healthy development, nothing more, nothing less. So I pose the question again: Would you rather see children grow up in orphanages while perfectly qualified applicants that are gay/lesbian couples get passed over? Or would you rather see the kids gain the benefit of a high SES home rather than waste away in an orphanage?

You are way over your head here. You apparently can not read properly, do not know the difference between a roll model and a role model. And you do not seem to grasp that SES factors are the main cause of social ills, not 'non-conventional' families.

I will repeat again: there is no such thing as a conventional family. The definition of a conventional family changes over time and across cultures. Care to differ?

 

[RickWhite]

I am not confusing causation with correlation, I was pointing out a correlation. You have two options: point out where I said it was causally linked, or read more carefully what I said. Your reading comprehension is poor at best.

There is no causal link between smoking and cancer, just a correlation that is as impossible to ignore as the correlation between SES and the social ills you mentioned.

Again, your ability to read for comprehension is amazingly poor. Here is what the APA says:

"home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

And where is it written in stone that a child needs a ROLE (not roll) model of each gender? A child needs an environment that nurtures their healthy development, nothing more, nothing less. So I pose the question again: Would you rather see children grow up in orphanages while perfectly qualified applicants that are gay/lesbian couples get passed over? Or would you rather see the kids gain the benefit of a high SES home rather than waste away in an orphanage?

You are way over your head here. You apparently can not read properly, do not know the difference between a roll model and a role model. And you do not seem to grasp that SES factors are the main cause of social ills, not 'non-conventional' families.

I will repeat again: there is no such thing as a conventional family. The definition of a conventional family changes over time and across cultures. Care to differ?

You are just making shit up out of desperation now. I posted numerous studies demonstrating the cause of many social ills in the very first post. It is easy to find.

It's funny how you cut a piece of that paragraph and obviously quoted it out of context. Do you think nobody will notice?

It is an argument from ignorance and there is no getting around that fact. You are not fooling anyone by removing the important part.

You are pathetic and boring.

 

[RickWhite]

I'm going to post the full APA statement again just for clarification. This is what it looks like when DukeofBaja isn't removing the key elements.

"not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded (based solely on lack of evidence to the contrary) that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

Note that nowhere does it say that a single study has demonstrated their findings. By their own admission, they are basing their findings on lack of evidence to the contrary. This is not how science works.

 

[dukeofbaja]

You obviously do not know how science works, my friend, and are not qualified to speak about it.

Science can not (usually) prove anything. Universal proof requires universal knowledge, which is impossible under the scope of this debate. So go take your demand for 'proof' or 'demonstrated findings' and shove it. It is an impossible demand.

Science is much much better at disproving. And it has disproved your conclusion that the only good way to raise a child is in a family with a male and female role model.

However, if one or more of those studies reviewed by the APA did find that children raised by gay/lesbian parents were at a disadvantage in some respect relative to the children of hetero parents, I would be disproven. Thatis not the case.

Great rebuttal, you only failed to address every important point I raised and instead made a failed attack based on misunderstanding of how science works.

 

[jeffchr]

 

[upnorth2505]

There is not much point in arguing with Rick at this point. If Jesus (opps, you don't believe in him do you?), umm if God provided proof in opposition to Rick's view, it would make no difference.

Rick is a hateful, racist, homophobic Jew. It is that simple. He will never change his thinking.