a bit rich?

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu,

Having a little textual tantrum with the formatting does not make you look more clever, just desperate.

I do not need to prove anything as it is you on here making the positive claims. I can only consider and comment on your evidence for what it is you are here claiming. I am not here to prove negatives nor should I.

Every area of our discourse is built on the idea of: you make a claim, you back it up. Our legal system, our science system, everything. Or do you go into your bank manager and when he asks you for proof you can pay back the loan you say “prove I cant”.

YOU came on here saying that two gay parents are not as “ideal” as the other configuration, yet you have not provided one shred of back up for this. When asked to you just have a text tantrum and start ranting I should prove you wrong. Or worse claiming that I have not been reading what you have been writing, despite me doing a full post by post dissection in #40. You even reduced yourself to saying something and then outright lying that you never said it at one point.

Yet you can not offer me one example of something that a woman can either do for, or provide for a child that a man can not. You can not do it for men over women either. You just sit there saying over and over that they are different, yet can not say how, nor how this affects child rearing abilities or why the lack of one reduces the "ideal" nature. Therefore this leg of your premise collapses.

You can also not offer any evidence that this “ideal” of yours provides any better or worse results than any other configuration. Therefore the other leg of your premise collapses.

So you are essentially sitting there with this premise that the unit is some how less ideal, yet you can not show one difference in quality with the factors going IN, and you show no difference in quality with the factors coming OUT. So what exactly is your premise standing on now?

You are the one here making the claim, you are therefore the one that needs to back it up. All I am doing is sitting here and showing that you have not offered any evidence for it yet. I know what your opinion is, you have said it often enough, but all I am asking is if you have any way to show this opinion is in any way true. You clearly can not, and trying to smoke screen that with a tantrum just demeans what little you have done so far.

I will tell you what. I am turning in now. That gives you 8 hours to come up with something better than this so far.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not need to prove anything

Of course you don't. ...but everyone else does. :rolleyes:

YOU came on here saying that two gay parents are not as “ideal” as

Did I? Where?

Yet you can not offer me one example of something that a woman can either do for, or provide for a child that a man can not.

A woman can not replicate male male relationships.

You can not do it for men over women either.

Men can't replicate female female relationships. However you don't accept that there is a difference between men and women, so how could their relationship be any different; how could their social interactions be any different? They couldn't be, but you can't provide any proof of this because none exists.
However, anyone else reading this thread will know that that is not the case from their own social experiences.

I will tell you what. I am turning in now. That gives you 8 hours to come up with something better than this so far.

No need. Until you provide proof of your assertion that there is no difference between men and women (which we all know is rubbish) I'll be hard pushed to post.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu,

The best you offered over night was to ask where you came on here talking about ideal parents. A quick reference back to post #40 gave me the answer in seconds. It referred me back to post #20 where you started yourself on the topic in response to another user.

Really this is the second time I have had to remind you of what you said.

So essentially YOUR position is that these are not “ideal relationships” to bring up children in and yet you can not explain how or why you think so.

You have offered no evidence to back this up, and you have ignored all the contra evidence I have offered like:
a) men and women are perfectly capable of filling any role in a child’s development while you are perfectly incapable or unwilling to list even one thing relevant to same that one can provide that the other can not and
b) that all parental configurations are just as likely to perform equally well or equally badly as each other which indicates that sex of the guardians has little to do with the “ideal environment” or the “ideal outcome” and
c) that the things important to a childs development are not what is in their parents pants, but the level of love, security, safety, education and support the child receives.

Really, refusing to offer any evidence at all, while going “lalalalala” at what goes against your premise is really making you look desperate. No wonder you had a text formatting tantrum and even lied about not saying something you actually did say.

So really you and J need to keep on thanking each other, because each other really is the only support you have on this notion thus far.

gogglebok

Jakkass wrote: »

There seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread, that if you do not agree with gay marriage, you are ignorant. Isn't it not conceivable for one minute that some people actually value the traditional family and want to ensure that all children have a mother and a father?

I'm disagree with you without thinking you're ignorant or prejudiced, Jakkass. I have no doubt that your position is sincerely held for the best motives. As is mine, I hope.

On your second point, however, I have some disagreements.

You say you want to ensure that all children have a mother and a father. Is this a general aspiration or something you would like to see enforced? If someone's motive really is to ensure that every child has one parent of each sex, then they should be just as hard on widows and widowers, and on other lone parents. They can't logically call for a ban on gay marriage without also calling for a ban on child-rearing widows and other single parents.

It also seems to me that you haven't considered the point several people have made about the "ideal" not being the only good. Even if we allowed that "one parent of each sex" is the ideal (which I don't), why should that ideal rule out other good things? We can eat muesli without banning Pop Tarts.

To put it simply, it's not enough to suggest that traditional marriage is better. You also have to show that non-traditional marriage is bad.

glaston

Zulu wrote: »

Forget him for a moment, I posed a direct question to you, can you answer it please?

You posed the question:

Either way, all things being equal, a man and a woman would provide a better environment simply as there is more diversity - do you not acknowledge that?

And I replied...

No. If a more diverse couple was better than a less diverse couple then he should be pushing for partners from different etnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

If you cant understand that the word no is a reply to a question then we are all wasting out time here.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

There seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread, that if you do not agree with gay marriage, you are ignorant. Isn't it not conceivable for one minute that some people actually value the traditional family and want to ensure that all children have a mother and a father?

Valuing the auld traditional family unit is one thing - I'd be more interested in how you think we could "ensure" all children have a mother and a father....

Maguined

Zulu you seem to be very selectively choosing what questions to respond to from other users so i assume you are avoiding a few for a specific reason but just in case i am wrong i am gonna fire off a good few now to clarify what your stance is on this.

You believe that the ideal scenario to raise children is one male parent and one female parent as genders are different and generally behave different so having two separate gendered role models gives the child a broader spectrum of experience in their development.

So this makes me believe that you are opposed to this civil partnership bill as you think this will result in more children not growing up in this ideal scenario as it could lead to same sex partners adopting and raising children. So you oppose this legal change then?

If the answer is yes you oppose it as you feel society should have laws enforcing children are raised in as ideal scenario as possible does this not mean that we should force widowed or single parents to remarry? this question has been asked of you more than once and you seem to have avoided it so far. It will come across as hypocritical if you believe its okay for widowed or single parent families to raise children within the law but same sex couples should be forbidden by the law as surely you would agree that two of the same gender would be better than only one of any gender?

Regarding the whole gender difference and role model points i actually agree with you that genders are different, men and women are "generally" different and behave differently and so having two parent of different genders will definitely have a different impact on a childs upbringing than only one gender but the point of contention i have is what impact that is. Just because a child has two different gendered parents we can both agree will not qualify that child gets a good "role model" as i am sure you have seen plenty of scumbag parents out there being bad role models for their kids and influencing their behaviour negatively. Since there is no legal definition of the "ideal" behaviour for raising your children only the barest minimum you must provide under law for children how can you propose that we restrict same sex couples (i am going off the assumption you disagree with the civil parntership laws i asked about above here on the basis it can lead children to be raised in "non ideal" families) yet there is no legal enforcement of the qualities you would describe as "ideal" behaviour in traditional different gendered parents?

The big problem is your definition of "ideal" parental behaviour cannot be defined in law as it is an individuals point of view what is ideal parenting or ideal role model. There is a delicate balance in the law between the rights and freedoms on an individual and their greater social responsibility, you are allowed smoke and drink and eat fatty foods as that is your right as an individual even though it is harming yourself however you are not allowed to attack and cause harm to another human being as society has deemed this unacceptable. Bringing law regarding the "ideal" and good role model behaviour and enforcing it onto society is too tricky to work as we all have different opinions on what constitutes the "ideal".

gogglebok

Mikaboshi wrote: »

Just because a child has two different gendered parents we can both agree will not qualify that child gets a good "role model" as i am sure you have seen plenty of scumbag parents out there being bad role models for their kids and influencing their behaviour negatively.

Great post, Mikaboshi. I'm highlighting this bit because I think you raise another sharp problem with Cardinal Brady's stance. Thinking of heterosexual couples as the "ideal" glosses over the many differences from couple to couple.

Can he really believe that every heterosexual couple will make better parents than every homosexual couple? That Fred and Rose West did a better job, for example, than two loving men or women? If he doesn't believe this, then he is already acknowledging that some gay couples will make better parents than some straight couples. It would be a decent and honest thing for him to say aloud, and would help give the impression that he wants to uncover the truth rather than stir up fear and prejudice.

Again, let's drop the element of sexual behaviour - which shouldn't surely have any huge impact on the child's life, regardless of the sexuality of the parents. Does Cardinal Brady object as strenuously to a child being raised by two brothers, or two sisters, or (as is far from rare) by a mother and a grandmother? If he doesn't, he will need to explain the distinction he is making, because his "role model" theory would exclude all these scenarios.

User21027

Gogglebok, Good point about single parents. Never thought of that before. i am one.

My son and i were ignored by the father the moment he knew i was pregnant. so never having a father, and therefore nothing to miss/or having anything to compare to- i suppose my son knows no different.

My brother and father give my son plenty of male influence and i am a very self sufficient female (servicing my own cars, cutting grass, power washing driveway, DIY in the home etc) But i agree that my father and brothers hunting/ motorbike hobbies, male chat, and general influence have, i assume had a positive influence on my son.

However i fail to see if i had been alone in my quest to raise my son, that my son would not have had sufficient influence from society, school, friends etc.

Its a circular arguement, it could continue for years. i heard recently on Matt Cooper, on this very subject, from a man raised by two lesbians who was a very well rounded individual. well spoken and educated, open-minded etc

So who knows the effects on single parented/ same parented families have on the kids in that relationship- Fairest thing to do is to hear from these kids. There is plenty of them out there rather than the usual inundated responses from straight people i suppose......

Zulu

Maguined wrote: »

You believe that the ideal scenario to raise children is one male parent and one female parent as genders are different and generally behave different so having two separate gendered role models gives the child a broader spectrum of experience in their development.

Correct.

So this makes me believe that you are opposed to this civil partnership bill

Incorrect.

as you think this will result in more children not growing up in this ideal scenario as it could lead to same sex partners adopting and raising children.

Incorrect.

So you oppose this legal change then?

I do not.

If the answer is yes you oppose it as you feel society should have laws enforcing children are raised in as ideal scenario as possible does this not mean that we should force widowed or single parents to remarry? this question has been asked of you more than once and you seem to have avoided it so far.

No this question has not be asked of me many times. A single loving parent/widow/widower is a far better environment to raise a child (imo) than an unsuitable couple.
Please don't suppose to know what I believe - just ask.

It will come across as hypocritical if you believe its okay for widowed or single parent families to raise children within the law but same sex couples should be forbidden by the law...

I never said it should be forbidden. You must have me confused with some other poster.

Zulu

Maguined wrote: »

It will come across as hypocritical if you believe its okay for widowed or single parent families to raise children within the law but same sex couples should be forbidden by the law as surely you would agree that two of the same gender would be better than only one of any gender?

The issue I have with these statements is that you're assuming I want the law on a particular side! I have no issue legally with same sex marriage or parents - so long as they are suitable parents. And you are dead right - there are mixed sex parents that shouldn't really be allowed have children at all!
I was only commenting on an ideal. The world is far from ideal, and the law shouldn't represent the ideal. Ideally we'd all have jobs, but to make unemployment illegal would be farcical!

Just because a child has two different gendered parents we can both agree will not qualify that child gets a good "role model" as i am sure you have seen plenty of scumbag parents out there being bad role models for their kids and influencing their behaviour negatively.

Totally agree.

how can you propose that we restrict same sex couples

I wouldn't. In fact - if they are "good" parents, I'd encourage it. A child is far better off with loving parents/guardians than in state care/orphanages. What I would encourage is support for these couples. Now I've only just considered this/haven't taught it true, but say take a lesbian couple, have a support group of fathers who they could go to for advice and encouragment when their boy is making the transition to manhood or vice versa with two men and a little girl - have mother to support them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maybe you can provide a list of examples of questions a woman could not answer for a boy when this time arrives? I can personally not think of one, but maybe this is a blow back from your personal archaic belief that you later denied espousing that there are ways that there is a certain way men and woman "should" act.

Zulu

Sorry what?

Just so we're clear, it's an "archaic belief" to think that men are different to women? Is that right?

Your position is so fundamentally flawed, there is little point in continuing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not what I said. Read it again. I said it was archaic to think that there is any way they "should" act based on their sexuality. The position was espoused and then denied on these threads that there was a way men "should" act and way women "should" act. A concept that our society has long left behind and men and women are now considered equal in these matters.

You are right, there is no point in continuing if you wish to respond to what I did not say, instead of what I did.

I take it you are not about to answer the question I just asked above however?

Your entire position on this thread has been based on this concept. You keep declaring that there is some kind of upbringing or environment that each sex can provide that the other can not. You have just repeated this now by suggesting that small boys can only get the answers about becoming a man from men.

Yet each and every time you declare this I have asked again and again for an example of things that one sex can provide that the other can not. I just asked you here for example for one answer a woman can give that a man could not about the boys questions about the transition into man hood.

Consistently however you have avoided the question. Not once have you even approached answering it.

Zulu

Did I say anything about how men & women "should" act?

Because if I didn't, and I suspect I didn't, you'd be very guilty of responding to what I did not say yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

I refer you to post #39 where you already asked this and I already answered it.

The position is so archaic however I am not surprised you keep wishing to distance yourself from it and pretend never to have said it. Here again if you lying about not saying it, followed by you saying it:

Please point out where I said anyone "should behave". I never said that - you are lieing. Stop. It's rude.

Infants look to their father to see how a man should behave, and to their mother to see how a woman should behave

So not only did you say it (so stop lying, its rude), but you still avoid telling us HOW a woman “should” behave or how a man “Should” behave.

And again, when asked over and over for an example you just avoid the question over and over.

Zulu

Well then in the interests of clarity, let me rephrase: "Infants look to their parents as examples".

I'm not sure that really encapsulates what I'm trying to express, however, I'd rather not be quoted out of context. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there is a correct or incorrect why a person should behave, however I do honestly believe infants look to their parents as role models, and that the sex of a parent acts a differential (ie: the infant will notice this as a difference).

I guess you could say even an infant can tell there are differences between men and women.

nozzferrahhtoo

You mean in the interests of retracting your statement without retracting your statement. This was not a clarification, it was a wholesale change of the words YOU said and have now twice denied saying (wanna do it a third time in another couple of weeks to appeal to biblical cliché of denial three times?)

However, that aside now let us look at what you have changed it to.

Yes, children look to parents as examples. However, that is not the issue. The issue your whole thread here has been based on is that certain configurations of parents can offer things others can not. Yet you have not offered one example of something that men can offer that women can not. Or vice versa. Therefore the entire basis for your argument is non existent.

You say there are differences between men and women, and in their pants there is. However if we narrow our discussion to the topic at hand, that of parenting, I see no difference and you have yet to give me one.

All I have been asking for for weeks now is that you give me on. What is it you see one configuration of parents offering that another is incapable of. What is the basis for this “ideal” configuration you keep appealing to?

You seem happy to declare it, and soap box it over and over. Yet you have not answered this simple question once which is the core of the whole thing.

Just once attempt to clarify your actual position. How SHOULD a person behave and how does the configuration of parents affect this?

I have said already that how *I* think we should behave is to give a child safety, nurture, education, love and support. I see nothing in that list that is affected by what is in the parents pants and therefore I see nothing of this "ideal" configuration you keep espousing.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You mean in the interests of retracting your statement without retracting your statement.

It appears you'd rather argue semantics than discuss the topic, - which is fine, that's your prerogative. I however do not wish to argue ad nauseium semantics.

This was not a clarification, it was a wholesale change of the words

Indeed it is a change of words. Well observed.

YOU said...

I did, and I attempted to clarify for your benefit, and in the interests of progressing the thread. Unfortunately though, you aren't interested in what I am trying to communicate; my position, merely what you can construe or take out of context in order to progress your argument. Again, fine.

Yes, children look to parents as examples.

Thank you for conceding that!

However, that is not the issue. The issue your whole thread here has been based on is that certain configurations of parents can offer things others can not.

Well if one were to accept that men and women are different, the discussion could move on, but you refuse to accept than men and women are different.

nozzferrahhtoo

You do not only not want to semantics, you appear to not even want to argue your own case. This is a strange forum to be a member of when you wish to avoid argument in all its forms.

I will of course keep trying, however it is an outright lie to suggest I am not „interested in what I am trying to communicate” as in fact I did proceed to discuss what you communicated and I said “that aside now let us look at what you have changed it to.”

It is also a lie to suggest I do not think men and women are different. I have said over and over they are. In their pants for example. However in the context of CHILD REARING ONLY which is our topic I can concede no such thing as I can not think of any way in which they are.

Nor, despite me asking again and again… and again and again… and again… can you! You seem to think that just saying it over and over somehow makes it true.

I am asking you over and over what one sex can provide that the other can not. You have not done so. The only thing you offered so far you have quickly deinied saying and have now today wholesale removed. So I am left with nothing to work with. So I am asking you, again, to give me some examples of what you mean.

… and again and again… and again and again… maybe someday?

Zulu

So you accept that men and women are different? (Genitalia aside)

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu, you are going around in circles now. I have conceeded this over and over. What I am saying is that in the context of this conversation there is no difference. Please, at least try and understand what that means.

Let me use a silly analogy to help you. Imagine two fruits that are different, but contain the exact same nutritional value. Imagine also that we are told that we should eat ideally two fruits a day.

So we could eat one of each or have two of one of them.

Really it does not matter, as the benefit of both are the same, despite them being obviously different in many ways. In other words:

1) Are they different - yes
2) In the context of a specific discussion are the different - no

They have differences, yes, but nothing of note in the context of nutrition.

Now I can CLAIM that it is better to have one of each ideally. However just claiming it - does not make it so. I would have to show what one fruit can provide that the other can not, for my claim to start to hold water.

This is essentially what you are doing. You are saying that there is an ideal, but are unable to say what one provides that the other does not. Whether the parents are two males, females or one of each is irrelevant until you establish this thing I have asked over and over.

In the abscence of that I see no reason to think the „ideal” you appeal to is real, a pair of parents both provide the same environment to the upbringing of the child regardless of whether they are in fact, if you pardon the pub based on my analogy, both fruits.

Summary: Is there differences.... yes.... is there differences that are relevant to the conversation of an ideal child rearing environment.... not that I am aware of and you haven't given me one either.

Zulu

In your given example of fruit: consider the bigger picture.

Yes the "nutritional value" is the same, however if you were to eat one of each, you'd have gained an experience you wouldn't have had you only eaten one type of fruit.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes, so you are gaining something that is nothing to do with the topic of nutrition. You have to go OUTSIDE the context in order to get on with it.

However in the context, you can find no difference.

So to go back to the topic at hand, yes there are differences, but in the context of child rearing ONLY, is there any difference? Apperently not and you are EITHER unwilling OR unable to provide even one, let alone enough to support your case.

So since your whole argument seems to be based on this, and you cant support it, you appear to have no argument?

Zulu

However, most of us would believe experience is an important factor in personal developement.

Do you not believe experience is within the context of human development?

nozzferrahhtoo

Of course, however we are going in circles because I am not back to the same question I keep asking you and you keep avoiding:

What experience, in the context of child rearing only and the ideal envioronment, is one sex providing that the other can not that is somehow relevant or beneficial?

I would argue that ALL people are different, so as long as there is two parents, the child gets two experiences.

Your position seems to be however that the two people do not just need to be different people, but different SEXES and yet you keep avoiding answering me when I ask a simple thing:

WHY and WHAT?

What experiences are two SEXES providing that two INDIVIDUALS can not?

I am not sure how many ways I can ask the same question, or how many ways you can ignore it.

Zulu

I'm not aware of any males who can give the experience of females, or vice versa.

This experience is relevant and beneficial to rearing children.

nozzferrahhtoo

Like what? What relevant experience to child rearing is to be shared? Again same question, again I expect you to avoid it.

Zulu

You don't think that the perosnal experience of being male/female is of any use to child rearing?

nozzferrahhtoo

No, as there is no relevant experience I know of, and you have not given example of one either, of which we can talk. Maybe you can finally stop avoiding the question and give me one.

There is nothing of which I know, that is relevant to giving a child the ideal upbringing environment, that a man can experience that a woman can not, or vice versa.

Apperently, there is nothing of which you know either, otherwise you would have given me the answer to this weeks ago instead of performing these rather impressive back flips to avoid the question over and over.

After all, if you were so right, you would really have given an example of one AGES ago and put my question to rest. Or maybe you actually have some pleasure you get from making users ask the same thing over and over without ever getting an answer? Is this like a pleasure thing for you?