tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post775950450739352163..comments2023-10-26T05:13:25.490-05:00Comments on Kingfisher Column: Diversity: Where to Draw the Line.Kingfisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-79842464597213560882008-12-17T19:42:00.000-06:002008-12-17T19:42:00.000-06:00Now, moving on....Fitz,Your sharing of research is...Now, moving on....<BR/><BR/>Fitz,<BR/><BR/>Your sharing of research is welcomed and appreciated. Your line-up of research which has been validated and agreed to by same-sex marriage proponent researchers is vital and especially significant to this debate on ideals. You have shown here that it is agreed upon, across the board, by researchers in-the-know on both sides of the fence, that marriage between a man and a woman is the gold standard for the development of children. This agreement sends a strong message to those who would intentionally mutilate that gold standard by substituting alternate combinations of numbers and letters into the equation so that it can never yield the correct answer again.<BR/><BR/>BeetleBabee,<BR/><BR/>This line is impeccable:<BR/><BR/><I>"The difference between adoption and same gender parenting is that one denies by design, and the other is attempting to repair by design."</I>Kingfisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-78858124432859150132008-12-17T19:08:00.000-06:002008-12-17T19:08:00.000-06:00Jesurgislac,This threat of Kingfisher defamation i...Jesurgislac,<BR/><BR/>This threat of Kingfisher defamation is a weak lamb's bleat into the mouth of a giant. Threaten all you like, link all you like. You are allowed to continue commenting here because what you provide for marriage debate fence-sitters is priceless - the true, illogical, sentimental, grasping face of traditional family opposition. While others in this forum are cohesively expressing thoughts and opinions, most backed by a plethora of social science research, you have successfully represented the foot-stomping, intentionally misunderstanding, emotionally driven gay rights community that coins and champions stirring, empty rhetoric. And when your assertions are picked apart by logic and reason, you resort to pointing fingers and issuing belittling threats. Please. Do continue.Kingfisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-34234564087470496032008-12-17T11:17:00.000-06:002008-12-17T11:17:00.000-06:00Jesu, I also notice Kingfisher allows you to post ...Jesu, I also notice Kingfisher allows you to post still, so the ground seems quite secure. <BR/><BR/>My mother taught me "If you can't say something nice....think harder!"<BR/><BR/>Fitz, Thanks for your comment. I appreciate bringing up the fact that on it's face, there are inequalities between parenting situations. Choices matter, all choices aren't inherently equal. It's a system of good, better, best. Married, intact, natural families are the gold standard for a reason. Adoption is the best option in cases where families have broken down and the gold standard can't be had. I personally have adopted older children and know of the wounds they've had to overcome. It is not the best situation for a kid to go through. <BR/><BR/>The difference between adoption and same gender parenting is that one denies by design, and the other is attempting to repair by design. <BR/><BR/>Adoption was similar to same sex unions at one time, with quite a bit of social stigma. It has had to overcome many hurdles in the last 100 years, but at this time, growing a gold standard family through adoption is very much accepted as healthy, for good reasons.<BR/><BR/>I would challenge gay "marriage" proponents who wish to automatically equate family forms to go through the rigors of public acceptance that adoption has. Let the scientists do their studies unimpeded. The truth will come out and if gay marriage is healthy and wonderful, then the people can choose and make an informed, right decision. <BR/><BR/>Browbeating and judicial activism is just not the way to go about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-83070606112638354932008-12-17T09:45:00.000-06:002008-12-17T09:45:00.000-06:00As for the "ad hominem" commentary; you're on your...<I><BR/>As for the "ad hominem" commentary; you're on your own there.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, your blog, your rules. I'll update my post linking to your blog to make clear you welcome ad hom, irrelevant, anonymous attacks on other commenters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-25905089359321769962008-12-17T09:18:00.000-06:002008-12-17T09:18:00.000-06:00There is a supreme disconnect between advocates of...There is a supreme disconnect between advocates of same-sex “marriage” and defenders of child welfare on the social science literature to date.<BR/> <BR/>This recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution By Jim Wooten called Yes, marriage matters to nurturing of children reminded me of various arguments I have had with recent posters here.<BR/> <BR/><I>"There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies —- those born out of wedlock —- to enter life disadvantaged."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Her analysis of research studies should put to rest all questions about what’s best for children. In virtually every study, weighing every variable —- family structure, age, income, race, education —- the evidence is overwhelming that children do better in families where married adults are rearing their biological children.“</I><BR/><BR/>Very much like the effects of divorce on child and adult child wellbeing that accompanied the divorce revolution, we are at a point in the research were there are simply not enough solidly scientific studies availiable for serious scientists to come to a conclusion & consensus on the issue of same-sex parenting.<BR/><BR/>I really wish same-sex “marriage” advocates were more knowledgeable about the state of this debate. Honest & Goodwill arguments have ceded many points relevant to both sides in this argument. Honest proponents need to go beyond the blanket assertions of professional organizations regarding the state of the science & approach the level of sophistication exercised by leading (goodwill) opponents on either side. <BR/><BR/>Leading, qualified proponents of genderless marriage have acknowledged the validity of the good-science requirements, and also the validity of conclusion’s regarding the failure of the “no differences” studies. <BR/><BR/><I> William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005) (“We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”) </I><BR/>Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 AM. SOC. REV. 159, 166 (2001). <BR/><BR/>In that regard I offer some findings from the recent Iowa District Court courts decision on same-sex “marriage”. Certainly honest proponents of same-sex “marriage” could note that the very experienced advocates for same-sex “marriage” who argued before the State Court would be loathe to cede foundational arguments to the opposition if they were truly contested within social science. <BR/>The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings: <BR/><BR/><I>1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)” </I> <BR/><BR/><I>2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk." </I><BR/><BR/>Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007),<BR/><BR/>So we know that married intact natural families are the gold standard. This fact has scientific consensus. Same-sex parenting lacks a scientific consensus because there simply are not enough good studies on which to base a conclusion.Fitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13309743585009080434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-82346705513843418002008-12-17T09:05:00.000-06:002008-12-17T09:05:00.000-06:00Jesurgislac,The point of this post is not "that so...Jesurgislac,<BR/><BR/>The point of this post is not <I>"that some kids are to be taught in school that their parents, and their families, are inferior."</I> Nor is that what this community has inferred by comments here. While you are subject to your own, personal interpretation of any piece of literature, that doesn't necessarily mean that your interpretation is what the author intended to say. There is, in your commentary, a propensity to maliciously interpret any positive opinions to have negative meanings. The cup is half full here, not half empty, Jesurgislac. Teaching children to strive for an ideal does not translate to teaching children that their alternate families are "inferior."<BR/><BR/>As for the "ad hominem" commentary; you're on your own there. You were the first to embark on that topic when you said, <I>"Liberty Belle, if you have no sensible response to make, it might be more effective not to comment at all, rather than to indulge yourself in ad hom, even of that rather mild variety."</I> Would you suggest that this blog develop an attitude of favoritism and render readers unable to defend personal attacks on them based on your declaration that, <I>"because these comments are not to do with the topic at hand - the acceptance or otherwise of diverse families?"</I><BR/><BR/>Frankly, Kingfisher is quite in agreement with Liberty Belle as to the overly-emotional, surprisingly spiteful interpretations (i.e. <I>"Trying to make kids despise their parents is not something that you can do 'lovingly.'"</I>) you have assigned to a noble suggestion (i.e. teaching children to strive for the ideal).Kingfisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-29049398373692115832008-12-17T06:51:00.000-06:002008-12-17T06:51:00.000-06:00Liberty: What do you mean by this?I mean that the ...Liberty: <I>What do you mean by this?</I><BR/><BR/>I mean that the point of this post is that some kids are to be taught in school that their parents, and their families, are inferior. Kids love and respect their parents, and this is good and right: the idea that schools ought to lead a drive to try and make these kids see their parents as inferior and wrong, and feel themselves to be living in a "sub-optimal family", is profoundly hateful. Trying to make kids despise their parents is not something that you can <I>do</I> "lovingly".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-2410612952526252232008-12-17T06:46:00.000-06:002008-12-17T06:46:00.000-06:00Liberty, I await KingFisher's ruling on this: if K...Liberty, I await KingFisher's ruling on this: if KF feels that these anonymous personal attacks are the standard of debate acceptable on this blog, I accept that it's their blog. But I see these as personal attacks rather than engaging in debate, because these comments are not to do with the topic at hand - the acceptance or otherwise of diverse families.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-45088660884358869402008-12-17T04:04:00.000-06:002008-12-17T04:04:00.000-06:00If we're going to get into ad hominem attacks, I t...If we're going to get into ad hominem attacks, I thought we ought to point out ALL of the Hominem family:<BR/><BR/>An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) <B>an appeal to emotion.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-74021749642408262402008-12-17T03:55:00.000-06:002008-12-17T03:55:00.000-06:00Please let's not whine about detractors, we all ha...Please let's not whine about detractors, we all have to put up with them, you should know that best of all Jesu. <BR/><BR/><I>How can you claim to "embrace and love children" while arguing that they ought to be taught that their families and their parents are inferior</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean by this?beetlebabeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587351134369209698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-52651431716448507462008-12-17T03:44:00.001-06:002008-12-17T03:44:00.001-06:00Oh, and re the Anonymous comment (at December 17, ...Oh, and re the Anonymous comment (at December 17, 2008 1:33 AM): do you allow all anonymous ad hom attacks on other commenters at your blog? I have been (civilly, I think) arguing an opposing point of view to you and most of your commenters. I have tried to stick to the point and I have tried to be polite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-39890944760838526912008-12-17T03:44:00.000-06:002008-12-17T03:44:00.000-06:00Now see what I mean? I think it's insomnia.Now see what I mean? I think it's insomnia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-34139535801624479922008-12-17T03:39:00.000-06:002008-12-17T03:39:00.000-06:00KingFisher: Children, in school and at home, shoul...KingFisher: <I>Children, in school and at home, should be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible family model for the greater societal good and for the physical, mental, and emotional development of future generations.</I><BR/><BR/>So you are, in fact, arguing that the children of same-sex couples ought to be taught that their parents, and their family, is an inferior family model. How is this <I>not</I> promoting intolerance among children towards diverse families?<BR/><BR/>If you were arguing that children ought to be taught that Christianity is the ideal religion, wouldn't you agree that this is directly promoting intolerance towards Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc?<BR/><BR/><I>And those children who come from alternative familial models should then be embraced and loved all the more for their disadvantage.</I><BR/><BR/>How can you claim to "embrace and love children" while arguing that they ought to be taught that their families <I>and their parents</I> are inferior? Would you be able to say (not that I suppose for a minute you would) "We embrace and love Muslim children all the more for their 'disadvantage', but we promote Christianity in school because that's the ideal"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-2273720298199438152008-12-17T03:33:00.000-06:002008-12-17T03:33:00.000-06:00You know, some people are totally emotionally unst...You know, some people are totally emotionally unstable through no fault of their own. I don't think anyone should pick on Jesurgislic for his/her emotional failings. <BR/><BR/>You can't judge other people until you've walked a sweaty mile in their shoes. Maybe he/she can't help but post and post and post....<BR/><BR/>and post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-47458889583860528182008-12-16T22:12:00.000-06:002008-12-16T22:12:00.000-06:00Jesurgislac,Those who oppose the teaching of homos...Jesurgislac,<BR/><BR/>Those who oppose the teaching of homosexual acceptance in school do not promote the teaching of intolerance toward diverse families. It would seem that for you, the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. The argument is that we, as a society, should never stop urging citizens to strive for the ideal. And by accepting a non-ideal (gay marriage) as equal, that is the message we provide for future generations to navigate. Gay rights activists operate under the mantra that one should have whatever makes one happy ("Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinness...."); however, a majority of social scientists and family scientists (and Founding Fathers) will readily agree that there are boundaries that must not be crossed because while the offense provides momentary gratification, it cannot produce lasting happinness. Children, in school and at home, should be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible family model for the greater societal good and for the physical, mental, and emotional development of future generations. And those children who come from alternative familial models should then be embraced and loved all the more for their disadvantage.Kingfisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-37575872851794198912008-12-16T21:57:00.000-06:002008-12-16T21:57:00.000-06:00Jes,It makes logical sense that if the best place ...Jes,<BR/><BR/>It makes logical sense that if the best place for kids is in a heterosexual marriage, that a school system should teach this fact. No one is suggesting that time be spent focusing on the "inferiority" of non-traditional families.<BR/><BR/>As for your adoption comments, they continue to show your blatant and out of control emotionalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-25318496017986366692008-12-16T21:55:00.000-06:002008-12-16T21:55:00.000-06:00Jesurgislac,This type of commentary is ripe with t...Jesurgislac,<BR/><BR/>This type of commentary is ripe with the blinding illogic of someone rather emotionally invested in a debate. Sensible response is neither possible nor expected when a debater speaks in personal opinion conclusions and spins tediously incomrehensible, exaggeratedly sentimental, and supremely unsupported comments.<BR/><BR/>If you are a gay rights supporter, it is understandable that you are hurt by the Prop 8 outcome. However, in the last 48 hours you have dominated this blog with illogical commentary and now supercilious remarks aimed at other commentators. One now begins to ask oneself, "What is Jesurgislac trying so desperately to prove?" If it is love you seek, stay a while; love for diverse people abounds in this forum. If it is tolerance you want, then welcome. If it is a respectful exhange of opposing opinions, then comment away, but for the sake of readers, it is advisable that you attempt to express yourself in a more coherent manner. Incohesive, overly-emotional presentation is only detrimental to the expression of the opinion you hold so dear. We try very hard to be understanding, but ultimately it is not the responsibility of the reader to create sense out of the impassioned speech of the orator.Kingfisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09104803485290311402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-38166057855852594792008-12-16T21:26:00.000-06:002008-12-16T21:26:00.000-06:00Yeah, Beetlebabee. For some reason, I do get emoti...Yeah, Beetlebabee. For some reason, I do get emotional about kids getting told by their teachers that their parents/their family are inferior. Given that his argument is that your adopted kids ought to be told that their family is inferior because you're not biologically their parents, I'm a little surprised that <I>you're</I> not getting emotional in their defense, but instead <I>agreeing</I> that your adopted kids ought to have their inferiority made clear to them. All the other adoptive parents I know care a very great deal about interfering adults trying to make their kids feel inferior because they're adopted: you're sort of the only exception I've ever encountered, even on the Internet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-57011118852437080322008-12-16T21:21:00.000-06:002008-12-16T21:21:00.000-06:00Actually Jesu, it's kind of fun watching Fitz ther...Actually Jesu, it's kind of fun watching Fitz there at work. You have to admit, he's got a point about your emotionalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-34300849112878924982008-12-16T19:28:00.000-06:002008-12-16T19:28:00.000-06:00Liberty Belle, if you have no sensible response to...Liberty Belle, if you have no sensible response to make, it might be more effective not to comment at all, rather than to indulge yourself in ad hom, even of that rather mild variety.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-23093564087400538732008-12-16T18:55:00.000-06:002008-12-16T18:55:00.000-06:00Jesu Jesu Jesu. Where did logic go wrong with you...Jesu Jesu Jesu. Where did logic go wrong with you?beetlebabeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587351134369209698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-51539775354971828512008-12-16T17:18:00.000-06:002008-12-16T17:18:00.000-06:00Fitz: Yes: multiple family forms ARE sub-optimal. ...Fitz: <I>Yes: multiple family forms ARE sub-optimal. But no one is advocating a curriculum to teach these children that these families are sub-optimal.</I><BR/><BR/>KingFisher is advocating just that: you were agreeing with KF earlier: and Beetlebabee was agreeing with you.<BR/><BR/>But, if you've changed your mind, good. Then you support people who say school should teach all children that all good families - whether they're single parents, adoptive parents, birth parents, step-parents - or mixed-sex or same-sex parents - are equal in value. And you oppose what KingFisher is saying, that children ought to be taught that any family that <B>isn't</B> parented by married, mixed-sex parents, is inferior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-42775080738001430572008-12-16T17:07:00.000-06:002008-12-16T17:07:00.000-06:00Once again jesurgislac comments reveal the emotion...Once again jesurgislac comments reveal the emotional grandstanding and strong-arm tactics that go under various rubrics like "family diversity" ..<BR/><BR/>Yes: multiple family forms ARE sub-optimal. But no one is advocating a curriculum to teach these children that these families are sub-optimal.<BR/><BR/>30 states have constitutional amendments that say marriage is between a man & a woman. Yet family advocates are not advancing a curriculum that teaches the inferiority of multiple other family forms.<BR/><BR/>That’s because they are the tolerant ones.. For the sake of social peace and good education we don’t turn classrooms into indoctrination centers.<BR/><BR/>Read jesurgislac comments above.. See the propensity to USE various broken family models as an excuse to push their agenda. See the USE of these children as political weapons….<BR/><BR/>A polymorous or polygamous family could easily send its children to a public school. Under jesurgislac logic we would have to start teaching that that to is “just as good” otherwise we will be hurting the children…<BR/><BR/>Shameless.Fitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13309743585009080434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-8089969833890895992008-12-16T15:57:00.000-06:002008-12-16T15:57:00.000-06:00emissary: Let's say there's a little girls whose d...emissary: <I>Let's say there's a little girls whose dad deserted her before she was born. Now her mom is trying to raise her by herself. We don't want to make her feel bad about having a "sub-optimal" home situation. But we also don't want to encourage her to follow in her mom's footsteps.</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? You mean a little boy whose dad deserted his mom before he was born? How does it make sense to say that a girl shouldn't "follow in her mom's footsteps" by, er, <I>not</I> being abandoned by her partner? Or that the girl ought to feel that when she's an adult, if she gets pregnant and her partner abandons her, she ought to have an abortion, not emulate her mother by having her baby and bringing her child up? Or are you advocating that the little girl ought to believe her mom should have had her adopted - another situation that Fitz, in his comment, says schools should make clear is "sub-optimal" (and which Beetlebabee, though having adopted children, agrees is "well said").<BR/><BR/>You're advocating that children whose parents are not a biological mom and dad, married to each other, ought not to respect, love, and honor their parents and families, and that schools especially should teach these children their families are "sub-optimal". And Beetlebabee, an adoptive parent, <I>agrees</I> that adopted children ought to be taught this by their schools?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4961055470406458728.post-86524084173514246092008-12-16T15:48:00.000-06:002008-12-16T15:48:00.000-06:00Fitz: Uh -oh, gay families exist so they need to b...Fitz: <I>Uh -oh, gay families exist so they need to be affirmed. Well divorced families exist, adopted families exist, widowed families, step families and on 7 on.<BR/><BR/>In none of these instances do we use the schools to hold up these families as equivalent to traditional families.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, we do - at least, good schools do. Children whose parents are divorced, who are adopted, one of whose parents are dead, children who have step-parents they live with or visit with at weekends - as well as children with same-sex parents - deserve to be able to read about their kind of families in story books and text books: to know that the families they live in are normal and regular families, and none of these children deserve to be made to feel bad because they don't have one mom, one dad, both of them their biological parents, married and still living together.<BR/><BR/>Why should adopted children be told that their situation is abnormal or weird or inferior because the parents who care for them aren't their biological parents? The children didn't choose to be adopted - nor did they choose to be adopted by a mixed-sex couple or a same-sex couple. Why shouldn't all children be encouraged by the school to love, honor, and feel good about their families? Why should some children be encouraged by the school to think their families are superior to those of their classmates and friends?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com