equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[phillyfan26]

Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.

I know there are exceptions. In discussions like this, I'm someone that enjoys searching for the patterns for the way things ought to be (like Plato's Realm of Ideas and Forms).

One of the unfortunate aspects of Postmodernism is that debate essentially is impossible - because in order to have a healthy debate - we must agree on a "common language" - a good Postmodernist loves to destroy the meaning of - well - just about anything. A is not A

So, what, should we just take all the kids away?

 

[Irvine511]

Can one have reasons for their faith? If so, they are not opposites.

reason, as a verb, is what i was talking about.

 

[BAW]

So what should a man do if his wife/partner dies and he's left to raise a daughter alone? Give her up for adoption? All of this silliness that men can't deal with female "issues" is one of the reasons that some parenting is messed up in the first place. I thought we were beyond that. That's part of the job of father-other than that I guess we should just allow gender selection for babies.

Girls are looking to their fathers in these areas-it's one of the things that is key to shaping their self images and their relationships with males. To their fathers gay or straight.

I'm kind wondering now if my son, a single father of a 10 month old baby girl, should just forget all of this taking responsibility stuff and simply give her to me or her other grandmother so we can properly raise her. He's already asking for advice on her first period and other female issues so he'll be prepared when it happens but who is he kidding, right?

 

[AEON]

reason, as a verb, is what i was talking about.

In my view, faith is not a blind leap into darkness, but a leap from the darkness into the light - and it takes reason to recognize the light as light.

When it comes to faith, Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophy identified there are three different aspects. The first aspect is fiducia - and this is the "supernatural" faith that Christians believe is the work of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, this is where many Christians stop - and where the critics such as A_Wanderer attack.

The second aspect of faith is noticia - which simply means the faith has content, or information regarding it (for Christians, this would be the Gospels and the New Testament letters - for secular humanists maybe the writings of Paul Kurtz).

The third aspect of faith is assensus - which is intellectual assent. This is similar to the question, "Do I believe that the Sun is mostly comprised of Hydrogen and Helium?" It is not a question that involves placing your personal trust in the answer, it simply means you use your mind to accept/reject the proposition based available evidence/information.

This is why I say that faith and reason are not opposites. Everyone at some point exercises the noticia and assensus aspects of faith.

 

[phillyfan26]

Light, dark, whatever. It's a blind leap nonetheless. Your "content" is a book some guys just wrote one day and claimed God was involved with, and I don't even know how the sun's composition influences your belief in God.

 

[AEON]

and I don't even know how the sun's composition influences your belief in God.

The point is - reason and thinking are involved. You can disagree with the conclusion, but you cannot truthfully assert that all faith is absent of reason.

 

[AEON]

So, what, should we just take all the kids away?

Not necessarily. Again, we are in the realm of what is preferable over what is acceptable.

 

[VintagePunk]

Not necessarily. Again, we are in the realm of what is preferable over what is acceptable.

Assuming the preferable vs the acceptable argument is valid (which it's not), it still has no impact on the gay marriage issue, since "acceptable" over "preferable" parenting is allowed in the straight community.


Also, to address comments made last night regarding psychological ramifications of this discussion, to take Baron-Cohen's statement regarding empathy and systemizing being hardwired into female and male brains, respectively, is a vast oversimplification, and furthermore, its application within this discussion doesn't fit. There are also problems with his theory of mind as it relates to autism anyway, but that's another discussion.

Regarding the psychological community being too politically correct to publish information to the contrary that homosexual parenting is equal to that of heterosexual parenting, I'd have to wonder how well the person making this statement knows the ins and outs of the psychological research community. Believe me, every researcher is looking to make their mark on the psychological world, and if they had valid data showing that homosexual parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting, it would be out there. Controversial and valid findings are a way to get your name out there, and for many, if not most researchers, that's a very desirable thing.

 

[AEON]

For one, this isn't "postmodernism," and I'm knowing full well that you're banding this word around at this point as an insult.

One of the aspects of postmodernism is deconstructionism (arguing the definition of the word "is") which inevitably leads to moral relativism (all moral codes are equally correct) which eventually leads nihilism (because if we deconstruct the meaning of everything until all words are meaningless and we accept the proposition that morality is basically meaningless - then it logically follows that life itself is meaningless).

If you seriously look back through your posts, it certainly seems apparent this is where your propositions will eventually terminate.

 

[AEON]

Controversial and valid findings are a way to get your name out there, and for many, if not most researchers, that's a very desirable thing.

In quantum mechanics, I agree. In psychology or sociology, I'm not so sure.

 

[VintagePunk]

In quantum mechanics, I agree. In psychology or sociology, I'm not so sure.

Well then, you're not familiar enough with the field.

 

[melon]

If you seriously look back through your posts, it certainly seems apparent this is where your propositions will eventually terminate.

And this conclusion is patently false. Re-read my arguments, and you'll notice not only substantial logical statements, but also that I cite objective results from professionals and their research that overwhelmingly support my position.

Frankly, it is modern conservatism that has devolved into a cacophony of "anything goes" relativism. Not that you necessarily share all of these beliefs, but if you feel that the world is 5,000 years old and think that God shares your prejudices and believe that Obama is a crypto-Muslim baby killing socialist, the odd thing is that we're supposed to elevate these unsubstantiated arguments to the same level of credibility as, say, all the archaeology that supports evolutionary theory, all the astronomy that supports a 13 billion year-old or so universe, and, yes, all the psychology and sociology that says that gays are just as well-adjusted and equal to their hetero counterparts.

I respect freedom of speech and diversity of opinion in the Western world, but I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that all these nonsensical argumentum ad antiquitatem logical fallacies spewing from the Right have any sort of credence in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Expecting ideals to actually stand up to the scrutiny of reason, logic, and science is the furthest from postmodern or relativist. Ironically enough, I do believe that "relativism" is precisely what's currently gripping the Right in their quest to remain relevant, and it's starting to become simultaneously scary and humorous.

 

[nathan1977]

you're taking your experience and presenting it as the only true, authentic experience that can be had

Hardly. If you've noticed, I've qualified my statements by saying that my experience, while my own, is in fact shared by the vast majority. You're the one making empirical statements in the face of biological and sociological human development, and trying to pass it off as fact.

how are your "friends" who've adopted, who've done IVF, any different from a gay couple who might do the same? the've clearly easily and casually discounted the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinsim plays in conception since science has let them circumvent these rules.

Since most of them are opposite-sex couples, actually, they haven't. They still require the conception of an egg and a sperm. The women still give birth to babies.

you have nothing to back any of this up.

Y'mean besides the apparently age-old history of biological and sociological human development?

the evidence, as we've pointed to you repeatedly

Yes, you keep saying "lesbians are the BEST" over and over. And yet Obama's evidence was pretty compelling. Boys need fathers. Period. Science, history, and stastistics land on one side of this equation. What lands on yours?

if biology is destiny as you assert, then why do we need to be taught how to be a boy or a girl?

Have you studied sociology at all?

Freud was wrong, btw.

According to whom?

you can speak for yourself, nathan, but it seems quite clear that you don't know many different kinds of families and appear to live in a fairly isolated clique.

FYM, this is the kettle. You're black.

you assert -- and this has been your implication from the start -- that children are harmed by two mothers or two fathers.

Never said it, don't think it. I do think however -- and again, this is kind of borne out by science, human development, and the court of public opinion -- that boys need fathers. Read Obama's statistics again. Children -- particularly boys -- are dramatically harmed by the lack of a father in the house. Your attempt to relegate the crucial role both mothers and fathers play smacks of naivete.

i suppose that's what happens when you substitute your own subjective experiences for objective reality.

When you're making arguments that fly in the face of objective reality and intent on redefining that reality, I guess it's up to us who have actually experienced the complete opposite to say something.

When I start "shitting out" kids out of my vag, I guess I can start to agree that gender doesn't mean something when it comes to parenting.

in order to reinforce this "value" to these "core social structures" by implying that there's only one way to do things you're going to have to demonstrate how the alternative does harm to said "core social structures."

Actually, I've made no such claims, beyond referring to statistics that are readily available. On the other hand, you're the one making an argument that a new core social structure is better than the old one, by insisting that homes with two lesbians are the optimal situation for raising a family. So the burden of proof lies on you. Again, there's thousands of years of human development on one side. What's on the other?

 

[nathan1977]

Nathan, I'm still waiting on yet another question you fail to answer...

Actually, I did answer your question, albeit in Irvine's thread. More and more people are simply cohabitating until they decide to have kids. Childbearing is increasingly the defining mark in switching from simply living together to getting married.

 

[INDY500]

give us more than old wives tales.
--Irvine

So, at least there's one gender social construct you acknowledge.

 

[BVS]

Actually, I did answer your question, albeit in Irvine's thread. More and more people are simply cohabitating until they decide to have kids. Childbearing is increasingly the defining mark in switching from simply living together to getting married.

Nice dodge, not what I asked...

I didn't ask, what you thought "more and more" people were doing, but what you believe.

So, is childbearing the "increasingly defining mark" in your obviously limited exposure to life, or do you have some numbers to back this up?

 

[nathan1977]

Look, at the end of the day, with all due respect, I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. INDY, AEON, I and others (seem to) represent one side of one view; Irvine, VP, martha, anitram and others represent another. I don't think we're really going to get anywhere by talking past each other, which is basically what we're doing. (I'm also leery of another diamond explosion.) Neither of us is going to recognize the legitimacy of the other's point of view, and I think it's because of these far murkier waters of gender and its role in society. Saying that gender roles shift and evolve over time is one thing; to disregard them is another, and this is the struggle I have being of two minds on the gay marriage issue.

So we're at a bit of a stalemate. We can yell all we want about not answering each other's questions, but I think presenting answers people don't like is vastly different from not answering the questions at hand. (And to be honest, I don't really think arguing about gender differentation and gender roles is going to cause the scales to fall off the eyes of someone in a same-sex relationship.)

With that, I think I'm tapping out. Happy Thanksgiving, for those of you who celebrate; and for those of you who don't, happy Thursday.

 

[AEON]

but if you feel that the world is 5,000 years old and think that God shares your prejudices and believe that Obama is a crypto-Muslim baby killing socialist, the odd thing is that we're supposed to elevate these unsubstantiated arguments to the same level of credibility as, say, all the archaeology that supports evolutionary theory, all the astronomy that supports a 13 billion year-old or so universe.

Melon, why is it you keep placing me in this camp? I have stated many times that I am not a Fundamentalist Christian. Unlike many Fundamentalists, I see no problem with evolution and 13 billion year-old universe. I am not a Republican - and I have no ill will toward Obama (nor do I think he is a radical Muslim).

I suppose you keep doing this because it would somehow make it easier for you to dismiss me as some speaking in tongues holy joe. I assure you, I am not that.

 

[nathan1977]

I didn't ask, what you thought "more and more" people were doing, but what you believe.

Who gives a crap what I believe? The statistics don't lie, and are far more compelling -- for more and more couples, marriage comes as a precursor to (or a result of) having kids.

 

[INDY500]

Nobody will be a bigger bitch in this thread than you, honey.

As catty repartee is not my forte... you win.

 

[Irvine511]

Hardly. If you've noticed, I've qualified my statements by saying that my experience, while my own, is in fact shared by the vast majority. You're the one making empirical statements in the face of biological and sociological human development, and trying to pass it off as fact.

pot, kettle. the difference, nathan, as we've pointed out with the APA and every other credible psychological association, as well as the experience of millions of children of gay and lesbian parents, is that my claims are empirical, you've just offered fast-and-loose pop psychology based on simplistic notions of "sociology" and whatever else you've pulled out of the sky.

Yes, you keep saying "lesbians are the BEST" over and over. And yet Obama's evidence was pretty compelling. Boys need fathers. Period. Science, history, and stastistics land on one side of this equation. What lands on yours?

are you kidding me? Obama's "evidence"? where, pray tell, WHERE does he talk about how children of gay parents are the problem in the African-American community? if you actually read the speech, as i pulled apart for you and listed the characteristics Obama himself lists, WHERE are the male-exclusive traits that the children of lesbians are so sorely lacking!?!?

or was Obama talking about the importance of intact, stable families where both partners support each other, and since the majority of families are heterosex, it was presented in terms most relatable to all? further, was Obama maybe also talking about he problem, particularly in the african-american community, of STRAIGHT fathers walking out on their kids?

it seems awfully, awfully terrible of you to blame absentee straight fathers on lesbian parents.

Have you studied sociology at all?

have you ?

According to whom?

according to any credible psychiatrist who knows that Freud was incredibly lacking when it came to people who weren't bourgeois heterosexual males in the late 19th century.

FYM, this is the kettle. You're black.

and yet, you're merely using your intelligence and writing skills to say the same thing that diamond has been saying all along. it's lipstick on a pig, but it's still ap ig.

Never said it, don't think it. I do think however -- and again, this is kind of borne out by science, human development, and the court of public opinion -- that boys need fathers. Read Obama's statistics again. Children -- particularly boys -- are dramatically harmed by the lack of a father in the house. Your attempt to relegate the crucial role both mothers and fathers play smacks of naivete.

i will reiterate this one more time: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE MALE CHILDREN OF LESBIANS ARE HARMED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A BIOLOGICAL FATHER IN THE HOUSE.

until you do that, you have nothing to offer here. nothing.

Obama is talking about broken homes and absentee fathers where a mother is left alone to take care of her children. he is not, repeat NOT, talking about the plight of children of lesbians.

the connection you're making is so specious it's laughable.

When you're making arguments that fly in the face of objective reality and intent on redefining that reality, I guess it's up to us who have actually experienced the complete opposite to say something.

When I start "shitting out" kids out of my vag, I guess I can start to agree that gender doesn't mean something when it comes to parenting.

Actually, I've made no such claims, beyond referring to statistics that are readily available. On the other hand, you're the one making an argument that a new core social structure is better than the old one, by insisting that homes with two lesbians are the optimal situation for raising a family. So the burden of proof lies on you. Again, there's thousands of years of human development on one side. What's on the other?

again, i could spend more time arguing, but VP has eviscerated you already, so i'll just repost that here.

Assuming the preferable vs the acceptable argument is valid (which it's not), it still has no impact on the gay marriage issue, since "acceptable" over "preferable" parenting is allowed in the straight community.


Also, to address comments made last night regarding psychological ramifications of this discussion, to take Baron-Cohen's statement regarding empathy and systemizing being hardwired into female and male brains, respectively, is a vast oversimplification, and furthermore, its application within this discussion doesn't fit. There are also problems with his theory of mind as it relates to autism anyway, but that's another discussion.

Regarding the psychological community being too politically correct to publish information to the contrary that homosexual parenting is equal to that of heterosexual parenting, I'd have to wonder how well the person making this statement knows the ins and outs of the psychological research community. Believe me, every researcher is looking to make their mark on the psychological world, and if they had valid data showing that homosexual parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting, it would be out there. Controversial and valid findings are a way to get your name out there, and for many, if not most researchers, that's a very desirable thing.

and as for lesbians being better parents, here you go:

Lesbians parents better at raising children - Times Online

i'm sorry objective reality is clashing with your wild, sweeping notions of "sociology," but there you have it.

 

[Irvine511]

Saying that gender roles shift and evolve over time is one thing; to disregard them is another, and this is the struggle I have being of two minds on the gay marriage issue.

ultimately, nathan, you're a sexist. which is what homophobia has always been, and always will be. it does challenge notions of a time-honored patriarchy, which has always been the impetus behind notions of "natural" gender roles.

life and it's experiences don't fit into your neat little boxes, and you've yet to come up with a shred of evidence that shows that children of lesbians are harmed by "not having a father."

there is none.

what we have is the frightening notion that, perhaps, there are alternatives to the mainstream that are just as good as the mainstream, and, imho, society always benefits from diversity.

 

[phillyfan26]

For a bit of time here, I wished that Varitek was here to post and tell INDY, Nathan, and AEON how she was raised by lesbians and turned out perfectly fine. But you know what? I just realized it means nothing. All three of you would have said, "I'm sure you are fine, but you could have been better in an IDEAL upbringing."

 

[Irvine511]

For a bit of time here, I wished that Varitek was here to post and tell INDY, Nathan, and AEON how she was raised by lesbians and turned out perfectly fine. But you know what? I just realized it means nothing. All three of you would have said, "I'm sure you are fine, but you could have been better in an IDEAL upbringing."

you see, Nathan has kids and "sociology," therefore Varitek's experience is wrong. poor thing just needs the scales to drop from her eyes.

 

[nathan1977]

pot, kettle. the difference, nathan, as we've pointed out with the APA and every other credible psychological association, as well as the experience of millions of children of gay and lesbian parents, is that my claims are empirical, you've just offered fast-and-loose pop psychology based on simplistic notions of "sociology" and whatever else you've pulled out of the sky.

One of us has thousands of years of evidence. One of us doesn't. You figure it out.

are you kidding me? Obama's "evidence"? where, pray tell, WHERE does he talk about how children of gay kids are the problem in the African-American community?

Sigh. I'll say it again. You asked why there was a need for gender-specific individuals in the home. I posted Obama's speech about the need of boys for fathers, complete with some eye-opening statistics about homes where fathers are absent. And 1 + 1 = 2.

or was Obama talking about the importance of intact, stable families where both partners support each other, and since the majority of families are heterosex, it was presented in terms most relatable to all? further, was Obama maybe also talking about he problem, particularly in the african-american community, of STRAIGHT fathers walking out on their kids?

Gosh, Irvine. It was a FATHER'S DAY SPEECH. ON FATHER'S DAY. Would you like me to go back and count the number of references he made to FATHERS and the need for FATHERS, particularly with boys? Would you like me to quote the statistics again to you?

it seems awfully, awfully terrible of you to blame absentee straight fathers on lesbian parents.

Hey look, our first straw man. Too bad that's not what I said.

i will reiterate this one more time: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE MALE CHILDREN OF LESBIANS ARE HARMED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A BIOLOGICAL FATHER IN THE HOUSE.

I don't have to, Irvine. You and I both know A) that there isn't enough statistics on the subject one way or the other (and that includes your article posted from the Times), and B) there is a far more compelling weight of evidence that boys need fathers. I don't have to "knock" or "slam" (your words) other types of family units, and I haven't, when the statistics have made it pretty clear that BOYS NEED FATHERS. Which is the point I've been making.

Obama is talking about broken homes and absentee fathers where a mother is left alone to take care of her children. he is not, repeat NOT, talking about the plight of children of lesbians.

Was Obama just talking to poor families in the ghetto? Or was he making a national address on Father's Day to American citizens? You tell me.

i'm sorry objective reality is clashing with your wild, sweeping notions of "sociology," but there you have it.

Funny, I don't feel terribly eviscerated. Especially after reading this article from that conservative screed Newsweek. Check it out. I've excerpted the most relevant points below. With, you know, statistics. About boys needing fathers. Which is the point I've been making the whole time.

Cover: The Trouble With Boys - Newsweek Society

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood, rich or poor, an increasing number of boys—now a startling 40 percent—are being raised without their biological dads.

Psychologists say that grandfathers and uncles can help, but emphasize that an adolescent boy without a father figure is like an explorer without a map. And that is especially true for poor boys and boys who are struggling in school. Older males, says Gurian, model self-restraint and solid work habits for younger ones. And whether they're breathing down their necks about grades or admonishing them to show up for school on time, "an older man reminds a boy in a million different ways that school is crucial to their mission in life."

In the past, boys had many opportunities to learn from older men. They might have been paired with a tutor, apprenticed to a master or put to work in the family store. High schools offered boys a rich array of roles in which to exercise leadership skills—class officer, yearbook editor or a place on the debate team. These days, with the exception of sports, more girls than boys are involved in those activities.

In neighborhoods where fathers are most scarce, the high-school dropout rates are shocking: more than half of African-American boys who start high school don't finish. David Banks, principal of the Eagle Academy for Young Men, one of four all-boy public high schools in the New York City system, wants each of his 180 students not only to graduate from high school but to enroll in college. And he's leaving nothing to chance. Almost every Eagle Academy boy has a male mentor—a lawyer, a police officer or an entrepreneur from the school's South Bronx neighborhood. The impact of the mentoring program, says Banks, has been "beyond profound." Tenth grader Rafael Mendez is unequivocal: his mentor "is the best thing that ever happened to me." Before Rafael came to Eagle Academy, he dreamed about playing pro baseball, but his mentor, Bronx Assistant District Attorney Rafael Curbelo, has shown him another way to succeed: Mendez is thinking about attending college in order to study forensic science.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[anitram]

Boys may "need" fathers as you say, but I see nothing indicating that there is a radical, large-scale change in social attitudes by these fathers who seem perfectly happy sowing their seed and moving on.

And the NEGLECT they show towards their children has NO BEARING on the parental abilities of the proverbial Adam and Steve down the street. Nothing!

What the hell are we even talking about here?? If anything, this entire exchange has done more to make me weary of having a baby with a heterosexual man who apparently has a predisposition to bailing on me than of what two lesbians are doing down the street.

How utterly bizarre.

 

[Irvine511]

One of us has thousands of years of evidence. One of us doesn't. You figure it out.

again, show me where the boys of lesbians are harmed by not having a biological father in the house. until you do this, your sweeping "thousands of years" means squat.

Sigh. I'll say it again. You asked why there was a need for gender-specific individuals in the home. I posted Obama's speech about the need of boys for fathers. And 1 + 1 = 2.

again, i listed for you the characteristics that Obama identified in fathers. which of those were gender specific? i'll repost if you like.

Obama's speech was about the need for fathers of children to help out their mothers -- he was addressing what are very specific concerns, particularly in the African-American community, about straight men having kids and leaving them with the babymamma.

it was, again, NOT about the suffering male children of lesbians.

Obama is talking about one thing, and you're taking that to mean that it applies to an entirely different situation, and you're doing this to justify a prejudice and continue an argument that has you backed into a corner.

Gosh, Irvine. It was a FATHER'S DAY SPEECH. ON FATHER'S DAY. Would you like me to go back and count the number of references he made to FATHERS and the need for FATHERS, particularly with boys? Would you like me to quote the statistics again to you?

gosh, Nathan, could you point out for me where he talked about how inadequate lesbian mothers were? Obama was speaking to the majority, and tapping onto a keenly heterosexual problem, he was NOT, repeat NOT, making anything about gay parenting. he was talking about the inadequacies of straight parenting.

Hey look, our first straw man. Too bad that's not what I said.

um, yes it is.

I don't have to, Irvine. You and I both know A) that there isn't enough statistics on the subject one way or the other (and that includes your article posted from the Times), and B) there is a far more compelling weight of evidence that boys need fathers. I don't have to "knock" or "slam" (your words) other types of family units, when the statistics have made it pretty clear that BOYS NEED FATHERS. Which is the only really controversial point I've made.

so what you've done here, nathan, is dismiss evidence that doesn't contradict the point that children, yes, need both their parents, instead what this evidence does is broaden and expand the range of acceptable families and acceptable households and prove that, yes, there are other optimal situations for children and, perhaps, some of this alternative situations are as good if not even better than what is mainstream. when you make the assertion that BOYS NEED FATHERS in the context of this thread, it is absolutely a knock on lesbian families.

i understand that's threatening.

Was Obama just talking to poor families in the ghetto? Or was he making a national address on Father's Day to American citizens? You tell me.

in the context of making a national address on Father's Day to American citizens, Obama chose to highlight a problem that *tends* to affect the African-American community and the poor.

again, i'm missing his implication that the children of lesbians are missing out.

Funny, I don't feel terribly eviscerated.

no, you probably wouldn't.

Happy Thanksgiving.

to you as well.

 

[Irvine511]

Boys may "need" fathers as you say, but I see nothing indicating that there is a radical, large-scale change in social attitudes by these fathers who seem perfectly happy sowing their seed and moving on.

And the NEGLECT they show towards their children has NO BEARING on the parental abilities of the proverbial Adam and Steve down the street. Nothing!

What the hell are we even talking about here?? If anything, this entire exchange has done more to make me weary of having a baby with a heterosexual man who apparently has a predisposition to bailing on me than of what two lesbians are doing down the street.

How utterly bizarre.

gotta blame someone if you're going to maintain an intellectually untenable position.

 

[nathan1977]

gotta blame someone if you're going to maintain an intellectually untenable position.

Try reading the article. It'll be good for you.

 

[Irvine511]

Try reading the article. It'll be good for you.

what does it say about gay parents?

hint: nothing. i've read the article, both before and again.

i agree, you heterosexuals have a lot of stuff to work on.