Every day decisions are made on parenting by experts in the field of human psychology. Their code of conduct decrees that they be unbiased and work solely in the interests of the children. I contend that these people are a good choice for mentally profiling people to determine their fitness for parenting. The only thing that is questionable is your willingness to accept that these people are qualified to do their jobs because their results do not tally with your view of how the world should be.

Perhaps you know of some way of determining this fitness which proves parents are equally capable, but you're just holding back the information to tease me.

There has still been no reply to the point that foster children are 5 times more likely to die having suffered abuse at the hands of their parents than children who are parented by their biological family.

You're changing the subject. Let me retrace the arc of the argument.

1) You claimed that women are naturally better parents than men.

2) I, and others, responded by saying that there is no evidence to support that claim.

3) You claimed that women are obviously better parents because of who gets custody in divorce claims.

4) I, and others, responded by saying that you made a big leap which had nothing to do with nature and had more to do with society.

5) You didn't respond to this differentiation between nature and society, and went on to post about how court-appointed psychologists are unbiased and know good parenting better than the rest of society.

So, where I'm at now is where I've been at since early on in this argument. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> women are raised to focus more on child-rearing than males. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> the hierarchical division between men and women has created a cultural phenomenon that allows more responsibility for women to raise children. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> men are much more often violent towards women and the power differences noted in the male-over-female system has created a vacuum for males in the child-rearing process.

These are social claims that can be backed up with statistics and things such as court settlements. Your global claim has not been backed up by scientific evidence about the nature of humanity at all.

Now, to relate all of this to homosexual parents as foster parents and bearers of surrogate children - Simply, there is no data set to support that it would be unwise or unsafe for homosexual parents to have children. The short-comings of the foster care system don't apply to homosexuals as a subset of all people who have foster children. That is like saying that because gun violence in the United States is a higher percentage than in other countries, that all gun owners in America are violent. Again, you need more support to back up your claims.

My reply is that this is an erroneous and irrelevant statistic to the subject at hand.

*nods...

We've tried to cite sources, including a pretty impressive cross section of experts in medicine, psychology, child development, etc... who all agree that queer sexual orientation is not a "problem" to be fixed, and not a barrier to good parenting.

I'm not questioning the abilities of psychologists. At least not in this thread. I have no problem accepting that fully trained mental health professionals are qualified to do their jobs.

What is really questionable, and you should think about this, is that you claim to be able to accurately interpret the motivations of mental health professionals using only statistical data. That's some kinda intuition you got there. It is odder still that you seem to be having a difficult time understanding why this doesn't pass muster as an rational basis for your position on this particular subject.

So, you're saying that the consensus among all professionals in the field of human psychology was that woman are fundamentally better parents than men. They seem to be keeping it pretty big secret. One of the patterns i've noticed when it comes to scientific disovery (when it doesn't involve areas of national defense) is that upon the discovery of something the results are made public to be tested by the collective scrutiny of the scientific community. If any group of psychologists had determined credibly that women are better parents than men, they would publish their findings. That is what scientists do. They don't reach some marvelous conclusion with far reaching societal implications and keep it a secret from everybody else. If there was any kind of scientific proof that the above assertion was true than we would have heard about it when the human psychology professionals you are attempting to speak for published their scientifically supported conclusions. Unfortunately for you, they have not published any such study. Why not? Are they trying to keep it a secret, or is there actually no solid scientific basis for such an assertion?

We are by our nature social animals. I'm not sure how you could test this situation outside of a social context, with it being a little tricky to find people who have never had a social relationship.
Your assumption seems to be that it must be society that shaped this activity, and dismissing the idea that it might be the activity shaping society.

What, just because they're homosexual?
Are you claiming that homosexuals are inherently less abusive than heterosexuals, and if so how did you come to this conclusion? Saying there is no data to support it is not the same as saying there is data to refute it.

This is ridiculous.. it's not saying all foster parents are abusive, but rather a higher percentage of them are than biological parents.

No, this isn't actually what I said. This is not some huge secret survey done by pyschologists. Each case is assessed on an individual basis. If the father is more capable of caring for the child, he gets custody. 90% of the time the mother gets custody. As far as I know there is no publication of findings either way, if the truth were already in plain view there would be no need for discussion here.

p.s.
Interesting points raised here and here, including points about the previously quoted studies.

Also, i want to know where the "90% of custody cases go to the mother" stat comes from. I also want to know why you think it is appropriate to attribute most or all of that 90% to some sort of inherent child bearing ability.

Exactly!!!! So, now that <i>you admit that you can't prove that some people are naturally better parents than others due to the social context</i> in the absence of having <u>specific scientific evidence</u> to back this up (rather than social observations). Again, you can make claims about our society and culture, but you are lacking when it comes to how people "naturally" are. We need more evidence.

Since openly homosexual couples have often been turned away from getting foster children, my thinking is that there is no way to associate those figures to that subset of society either way. For all I know, homosexuals may be more abusive. But I'd need data specific to homosexuals to make any conclusions.

If you agree that it is ridiculous, then the next step is to find out what the factors are that cause foster parents to be abusive. Does it have a correlation to things that have nothing to do with sexuality? What are those things? Is it possible that as a subset of all foster parents that homosexual couples would have lower rates of abuse than the rest of the pie? Again, your data doesn't prove anything without it being specific to homosexuality.

Generalizing homosexual foster parents with <i>all</i> foster parents defeats the purpose of looking specifically at homosexuals as foster parents.

to be honest, i did not read all of this topic. anyway.
first of all. it's not their choise to be homosexual. what a funny idea. if you are hetero try to really love a man or try not beeing aroused by a beautyfull woman. you will fail. it' s all in the genes. second, don't believe everything your government is saying. gays don't harm other people by just being gay. so it can't be unmoral. (and there was never a chance, that iraq could attack america with a, b or c-bombs, no matter what your government is saying.;)

This is brief, I have to go out shortly.
On the 90% custody issue, slap it in a search engine and you will find it, you're just sidetracking the issue by unnecessarily nitpicking every little detail.
Our social behaviour is a result of our how we naturally are. Having a child is a social activity and it is also a natural activity. In this case the social context is a natural context.

Why? Because homosexual can be equally good parents but not equally bad parents? If your claim is that there is no difference between homo and hetero parenting, the statistics are valid.

Yes, but to prove your point, Adysav, you need to argue why it is that foster parents tend to be more abusive than biological parents. Otherwise, since our society has already said it's okay for hetero couples to be foster parents, if we assume as we have been that gay couples are just as good (and just as bad) as hetero couples at parenting, the conclusion to draw is just that gay couples should be able to adopt.

(And, while writing, I had an interesting thought. The statistic, that foster parents tend to be more abusive. Is that just foster parents, or does that include adoptive parents as well?)

Kill me now, but this thing stemmed from the argument about incest. Basically it was decided by the others that incest would be ok, were it not for the fact that the fruit of all incestuous relations were prone to birth defects. I am merely making the point that since all homosexual couples lack at least one biological parent it puts them in a group with an increased risk of abuse. If one is a legitimate reason, why not the other.

The data was from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, but I forget where specifically it came from, so it may or may not have included adoption.

Just because you enjoy the benefits of sidetracking an issue by nitpicking(incest) doesn't mean that that is what i am doing. I'm just asking for a source. Quoting a stat as fact and then expecting the people arguing against you to run and verify it is not only lazy, but also also shows a complete lack of respect for your own argument. Good thing i took your suggestion and googled it. Here's what i found:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawr...4/mcneely.html

It's about a sixth of the way down, ctrl-f and type in "90%" if you want to find it.

In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination of which parent recieves custody of their children in divorce proceedings.


Fathers are often not permitted by society's gender expectations to alter their roles to fully participate in child rearing. Notice how this attributed to society and not some innate biological condition. These are the same human psychologists who you claimed to speak for.

Sorry to nitpick, but it is hard to take you seriously when you make statements that are so obviously untrue or unknowable like, "Women are better parents than men."

or we could go by what the report actually says:
"It cannot be fairly concluded through the analysis of these data that those forces are based on gender bias"
How can someone not be permitted to do something by expectations?
If I wanted to stay at home with my child while my wife went to work as a builder, then that's what we would do.

A response like this indicates to me that you're a man that only sees what he wants to see.

Ok, so why doesn't she want to be a builder? Is it that you also think that men are naturally better builders than women?

Do you understand the difference between the socialization process creating social norms and standards that create acceptable life-paths, and absolute freedom? We could all theoretically do lots of things, but we choose based on what we see around us (such as what others <i>like us</i> do around us). There are so many pressures put on us from the time we are born to fit into acceptable gender roles. Can you think back to the playground to how the guy who acted more like the girls was treated? The tomboy? What about how parents raise their children? Have you watched television lately? Read any books?

Expectations shape behavior. In the sense that I don't want to do a lot of things because my expectations have been shaped by my environment. In this sense that a lot of the things I do and want to do have been shaped by my environment. I think you are really missing a huge aspect of how humanity actually works with your essentialistic attitude.

You got me. By bolding that section text i was secretly hoping to actually only call your attention to one specific part of it. You picked the wrong part though. What i actually meant to call attention to by bolding those two sentences was just this one section: "It cannot be fairly concluded." So, i guess what i was trying to say by bolding those two sentences was that "It cannot be fairly concluded". What it is is beyond me, because i am following your lead and ignoring the rest of the sentence. :thumbsup:

It has been a while since intro sociology, but lemme see if i can remember...

Societies are kept in order by things called mores and norms and laws. Laws are codified and breaking them often results in legal sanctions. For the less important rules (the mores and the norms) society uses informal sanctions like discrimination, insults, anything really. A functional society runs smoothly because the members of that society act as willing agents of social control in enforcing the mores, norms and laws. You are correct in saying that everyone has a choice in whether they want to conform to the expectations of their society. Their choice is between conformity or sanction. If you doubt this, then you should go to work naked tomorrow and tell me how this expression of personal freedom affected your personal well being at your workplace. If you refuse to go to work naked, then you have not permitted yourself to do something based society's expectations. So there you go.

You can turn the page upside down, translate it into hebrew and back or chant it backwards around a camp fire, but that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted part clearly states there is no gender bias indicated. This is at odds with your summarisation "In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination..."
Last time I checked, expectations were not equivalent to law. There is no law saying that a man can't stay at home with his child, and no law saying his wife can't go to work while he does it.
I really don't think this deserves a response, because now I know you're trying to wind me up.
When you read my post you seem to have added a section yourself that isn't there. Something like "all her life she's played with the toy trucks and aspired to become a leading figure in the construction trade. I'll crush that bitches hopes under my boot if she gets ideas above her station".
Would it help if I just edited my previous posts to fit your criticisms of things I didn't say?
No and no.
I sincerely hope you don't think you should shape your life around the tauntings of playground bullies.
They must have really got to you.

Actually, I'm being serious. Why doesn't she want to be a builder? Did my question say anything about you personally regarding that? I don't understand why you're having such an extreme response. I don't see there being some sort of hidden agenda in my question. My point was that there are reasons that people choose things and don't choose things and those are usually social in nature. If you had answered the question sincerely rather than attacking me personally and putting words in my mouth you might give me and yourself some insight.

Well, you've wildly mischaracterized what I'm saying again. And you have gone personal again. Big surprise. By talking about how society shapes human behavior as a web of relations that enforces normalized behavior (a la Michael Foucault), you turn around and attack me for things you certainly know nothing about (such as my personal life history). Again, it appears to me that you're only seeing what you're wanting to see. I think it is unfortunate that when I ask straight questions that you assume that I'm trying to do something that I'm not. I would like for you to understand these basic tenets of sociology that have been discussed earlier and to realize that there are claims that can be made about nature and claims that can be made about our society and culture <i>and</i> that there is a difference. I think your preconceptions and beliefs are becoming a real barrier to having an earnest discussion about these things. If you don't want to consider what I say, that's fine, but at least realize that you're doing it rather than lashing out ridiculously.

I think that i might as well be typing in arabic.

[/quote]Indeed, analyzed fairly, the data underlying the figure strongly suggest social and cultural forces at play beyond a holistic analysis of children=s best interests.[/quote]

It says their isn't any conclusive evidence for or against gender bias, but that the data strongy suggests social and cultural forces at play beyond what is best for the children. This directly contradicts your assertion that the results of child custody cases are a reflection of what is best for the children.

Okay, then tell your boss his wife is a whore. That's not illegal. C'mon, don't be a slave to society's expectations of you.

Dude, I'm not married and I don't have any kids.
Yeah, if you say one thing then pretend you said something else.
Whether I am agreeable or not with someone is a matter between me and that person, not me and the rest of society.

Then you probably shouldn't say that you do. ...Esp. if you aren't willing to talk about it after you bring it up.

I personally think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I don't agree with it and it's a lifestyle that I would not live however there are so many other issues in the world that carry so much wieght that this is the bottom of the list. When the wieght of hunger in Africa and homosexuality are on my moral give a shit list homosexuality is not a fucking issue whatsoever. I think people need to realize that there are alot more severe thorns jammed into our moral complex than a victimless lifestyle that may make someone happy. Especially in this day and age where happiness seems to become are rare commodity, if they aren't hurting you just let people be. If you are going to protest, donate, or whatever, then why not get some priorities and send some money to a Childrens fun or those hours standing on the streets holding a sign volounteer for the Salvation.

To sum up my opinion on homosexuality is people need to get their priorities staight about what cause really warrents holding up your banner for all the world to see. If people would honestly place more stock in a president's view on homosexuality than his changes to the military and education system then you just don't have your shit straight.

Yeah, if you misread something, just pretend that i misspoke.

Whatever, conformo. Prove to me you aren't bound by the expectations of society. C'mon, tell me that the fundamental basis for much of sociology is bullshit. Please, it would only make sense in the context of your ever-shifting perspectives.

"In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination of which parent recieves custody..."
"It says their isn't any conclusive evidence for or against gender bias..."

Forgive me if I interpreted that as a contradiction.
What could I possibly say that would convince you.

It's called a hypothetical situation. How can I talk about what my wife does or doesn't want when she is an imaginary subject in a debate.

As it stands, you have provided little evidence to support your assertion that men are less capable parents than women.

Personally, as my 8 mth old daughter sits on my lap.....and I type with one hand. I really see but one difference between my wife and myself when it comes to parenting.....she can breastfeed.

Ok... lets take a step back then. If you're using a hypothetical example that you can't discuss because its not real, then provide something that isn't "imaginary" to illustrate your point.

There.is.nothing.stopping.you.taking.a.job.against.your.traditional.gender.role.
Particularly since the introduction of equal opportunities laws.
I'm glad, I take it you split everything 50-50.

An article I found.

"It is hardly absurd to think that the parent who gives birth may have a biological predisposition to be more attached to the baby. On the other hand, a biological predisposition is not a universal imperative."

Obviously it isn't the case that every woman acts this way and every man acts another way, but it doesn't make any sense to simply rule out that biology is a factor.

"Gilligan contrasted women's "ethic of care," based on human needs and relationships, with "male" moral reasoning based on rights, justice, and abstract principles.
"Difference feminists" usually skirt the question of where the difference originates, though Gilligan dances on the edge of arguing that childbearing gives women "easier access...to the fact of human connection.""

"That men are more likely to think and act in some ways and women in others, and that every man or woman should be treated as an individual, are two ideas we ought to be able to hold at the same time. This means avoiding comments like, "Each sex seems to have a different definition of what constitutes success in life" (as Browne writes, quoting from a 1968 monograph by psychologists Joseph E. Garai and Amram Scheinfeld). Sexes don't have definitions of success; people do. But it also means accepting that in a nonsexist society, most corporate executives may be men and most "primary caregiver" parents may be women."

and, interestingly...
"Some scientists report pressure to stop or bowdlerize sex difference research. In John Stossel's 1995 ABC special, Boys and Girls Are Different, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem dismissed such research as "poppycock" and "anti-American crazy thinking.""

You omitted the bold part, why for?

So again, we've gone from "Women are better at raising children" to "Men and women are different".

I knew you'd point that out.
I didn't include it because the other two sentences were sufficient to make my point, that everyone is not the same and they don't all fit neatly into my categories.
That, and I don't like scrolling pages at a time just to read one line comments.
Not exactly.
The bits I quoted, in summary, women naturally have a stronger attachment to their child than the fathers and they also have a natural "ethic of care" and concentrate on relationships. Women naturally think like parents and men do not, but that is not to say they cannot easily learn to do so.

My last quote in the previous post adds some insight into why there is so little written about the subject.

But your assertion was that women are better parents than men, not that women have an "ethic of care" that men lack. None of this supports the idea that men don't raise children as well as women do, just that women may initially have a stronger connection to a child.

Remember, you said that allowing gay marriage would be a bad thing because men aren't as capable of raising children as women are.

I understand that it is very difficult to prove a natural predisposition to parenting for various reasons outlined in this thread.
What I was trying to show in the previous few posts is that women naturally possess traits suited to parenting, while men do not.
Well, really it's solely about gay parenting. It just seems that people here cannot divorce the two concepts (no pun intended).

I haven't read this whole thread so if this is a repeat idea thats why.

I can't see homosexuality as a choice. Most societies think homosexuality as a perversion, some have had a death penalty for it. Most people don't WANT to be perverts in the eyes of society. Its also to pervasive. I've never heard of a society that didn't have homosexuals. Therefore its just what they are, their brains are wired to be attracted to the 'wrong' sex.

If no one is being hurt (unlike with pedophillia) then it is not a moral issue. Some would say society is hurt, but I do not agree with them.

Except... yourself. And, well, lots of things. We aren't formed in vacuums.

And you realized that there are reasons that opportunity laws have been created - because our culture has explicitly and implicitly limited the ability of people of different groups to do things. You mentioned "builder" earlier for a specific reason - building is a particularly male-oriented field. Interests are shaped by what we're exposed to starting at a young age. Why do you think that about 50% of young black men are in prison? Is it because blacks are naturally predisposed to be criminals? Before you start freaking out again, I'm going to stop you before you go any further and let you know that the last question was rhetorical. The point is that cultural expectations and our environments dictate a lot about what we do, what we want, and what we don't do and don't want. Just because there is supposedly no barriers to doing anything we want legally, there are many barriers to doing certain things because of our social consciousness that is <i>created by all of the institutions of society which <b>we use to create our values</b></i>.

We aren't formed in vacuums.

Our desires to not do things and to do things are created by the contexts of our lives, our environments. This can be easily proven by looking through historical phenomenons thematically. How did we get from valuing the love between men in Ancient Greece as being the most valueable kind of love of all to an era of homophobia? How have we gone from differentiating sexual preference and gender roles to making them essentially the same things in the last century? Why did the practice of courtly love come into fashion, and why did it melt away?

There is a context to all decision-making.
We aren't living in vacuums.

Have you ever thought about why you like some things and dislike others? Have you ever caught yourself buying something that you don't need or even have a use for because of good marketing? Have you ever been inspired by a story in the news, by a novel, by a movie, or by something else you've seen on TV? Have you ever seen someone act in a way that you would consider to self-destructive or immature that reminded you a little too closely of something you've seen on television lately? Have you seen stupid fads catch on and wondered why so many people suddenly flocked to this new thing? Have you, or someone you know, been a part of something and then felt a twinge of embarrassment after realizing how stupid that was at the time and then wondered what caused you, or that person, to do it in the first place?

The structure of society as an institution that shapes decision-making is a total institution. Very few people escape its grasps, and those who do are considered oddities. We can't escape having our consciousness shaped in a large part by society because we are actively engaged in society on so many levels.

So, respectfully, I ask you to consider that even though there are technically no legal barriers to having absolute freedom of choice, that our social contexts create what are seen as viable and desireable choices for us that quite often match gender and other stereotypes - and that it isn't coincidental, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "natural predisposition".

There is something highly problematic about talking about the way people "naturally" are - people are so highly adaptable. You may think of women as naturally being great mothers, and yet I know many people that would be considered awful with children. Whatever that "natural predisposition" is that you think women have is making a no-show in these people. With so many exceptions and differences in outcomes, coupled with explanations that can be linked to social contexts, how does talking about "natural predisposition" help us in these kinds of discussions in any way. At best, the argument will be weak because it is basically impossible to scientifically research what "natural predisposition" is. At worst, it will enforce stereotypes needlessly and continue the cycle of social construction that disenfranchises some people in some ways for no good reason. In less than a month, there is a good chance that here in Oregon a ballot measure could pass that will make it illegal for homosexuals to get married according to our state constitution. If this passes because of beliefs about certain kinds of people being inadequate for no reasons other than misinformation and assumptions that are totally unproven, then it will be a sad time for many people which will show how social contexts shape decision-making in a limiting fashion and in a detrimental way.

So yeah, some things we're born with, and some we assimilate.
Thanks for that.

Children of Homosexual Parents

"Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality."

you noticed who's doing that content analysis...who decides what problems to "attribute"? Family Research Council. Not exactly impartial, mmmkay?

Everyone has an agenda.
It was hard enough trying to find a parenting article that wasn't written by feminists.

adysav -- no control group?

Besides, there's bias and there's bias. Saying everyone has an agenda is not the same thing as saying everyone's equally unbiased.

Because it's absolutely absurd to listen to women on the topic of what women can do.

Well, if you're not going to respond to me in more than an over-generalized way, I'll just ask you a question at a time -


How are you able to tell the difference between what we're born with and what we assimilate?


I think this is particularly important to answer considering that you're using many different studies to illustrate something about gay parenting that, from my view, are mired with information that says nothing about what we're born with (or without).

Hey, I admit I've trying to argue something that's a bit thin on the ground for professionals, nevermind the layman. It seems the only people who are interested in researching this point are those who are adamantly for or against it.

I suppose I should concede that there is very little that is definite in this case, but I still hold that each sex has inherent skills which shouldn't simply be ignored.

Yeah, like how Chechen terrorists are representative of all Muslims.
Feminists aren't just women, they're walking contradictions.
"Hey women should be treated equally to men, but all men are bastards"

I think I must have been born with this skill :thumbsup:

In the name of progress essentially the family unit has been destroyed. Over time Women have become more career minded however Men can still not be accepted as fathers or the emotional backbone of a family. It seems like family alone is no longer suitable to satisfy the desires of societies, it would mean nothing if the newest SUV with chrome rims wasn't in the driveway, so in the name of possesion the children become more distant as both parents are at work, less time is spent togethor as they drift towards the inevitable divorce that is so common now.
So if the number of 2 income houses increases so does the jobs market for single and one income houses. I mean what has really happened in the name of progress? I agree that there should be equality but it has to go both ways. So why have a guy be a stay at home guy? This could never happen cause the guy has to pay for the first date. If there is to be quality then every gender based expectation needs to be dropped.

Feminists aren't terrorists. To even compare them as such is absurd. You can't just paint feminists with one brush. Just like people, they are actually quite different from each other. It's all in how you look at it... Not all feminists are radical feminists. There is no one platform for feminism that says what you're saying. It's much broader than that.

First of all, not all feminists are women. And not all feminists believe that "all men are bastards". You must be referring to the Dworkian types who have had *personal negative experiences* with men and use it as part of their agenda. While I don't believe that crossing personal experiences with political agenda and making it an emotional case rather than a logical case using facts is a good thing, it is out there and making an impression on people like you. But, this is nothing like feminism in its true identity. There is nothing in the definition of feminism that says, "belief in the hatred of men".

As wilbjammin points out, your views on this subject are directly related to society around you. It has nothing to do with you being an expert, or having been born with some sort of "skill". It sounds like more bias to me.

May God forgive me for sweeping generalisations and the use of sarcasm.

As you are obviously omnipotent (at least in your mind) You may forgive yourself.

Unless that is to much of a generalization, in its use of sarcasm.

That doesn't mean I'm the only god.

................

We have a kind of time share thing. I get Sundays and Wednesdays.

Hera is nuisance ain't she?

Now there's one family that you don't want involved in this.

Feminists do not hate men. Claiming that they do is like claiming all muslims terrorists, which you seem to be against here. Odd.

I suppose all the documented evidence of homosexuality among the higher orders of animals (dolphin, chimpanzee, bovine, avian, whale, pig, gorilla, elephant, etc) both in captivity and in the wild is all either a creation of the "gay agenda" branch of the scientific establishment or the result of social conditioning brought on by observing their gay observers.

A second observation... Gay marriage is legal here now (Nova Scotia) and there has been no outcry, no breakdown of the family, children have not been abandoned in the street by people choosing to go off and live new gay lives. The only issue dividing our province at the moment is whether allowing Sunday shopping will destroy the family.

This topic was being discussed on CSPAN today. One of the panelists said what I thought made the most sense: Attraction to the same sex might be ingrained, but actions are not. There is no reason for governments to sponsor what is a deviant behavior. If someone chooses to have a same-sex relationship, that is a choice. Should they be persecuted-no. But that doesn't mean that they should gain special status. The same rationale applied for allowing gay marriage could be applied to bigamy/polygamy. The only difference is the gays have better P.R.

It sure is. Sexual orientation alone does not affect people negatively in any aspect of their personality, and I think people should be able to live and fuck as they please.

I will tell you why divorce rates continue to climb as we continue through time; it is because women's rights are being recognized. This is not in the sense that you are describing however, but the fact that in the past, lack of women's rights meant that to fit into the norms put forth for them, they had to get married, and they had to stay married to survive, because their husban was their sole source of income. Now that they're being considered to be more or less equals (I stress this because it depends which dimension of society you want to look at to see who is placed above or below on the heirarchy), they have the financial ability to get a divorce. They are also more able to be equal in marital relationships, and therefore will say or do things that may cause the husband to want a divorce more frequently as well.

Gender-based expectations are slowly being transformed (not dropped) to better fit a society of financial and legal equality for both sexes. There are stay-at-home dads, and there are stay-at-home moms. The primary gender expectations in economy and law, and the whole "guy paying for the first date" thing are expectations of individuals and small groups; not of society as a whole.

Well, if the government was going to stop sponsoring deviant behavior, it would have to stop recognizing successful marriages entirely. A divorce rate of over 50% means that participating in a succesful marriage is a deviant act.

What stands out to me is the idea that marriage is "government sponsored" and that gay <i>marriage</i> is a behavior. First, the rights gained from marriage for homosexual couples typically aren't viewed as being "government sponsored" marriages. They are consenting adults in a contractual relationship with each other... and, in some cases, this is done in "the eyes of God" (but not always). Second, the differences in behavior from being in a marriage and not being in a marriage to committed couples is very small... whether or not <i>you</i> consider it to be deviant doesn't change anything. How is it deviant if all kinds of people get married everyday? Certainly, there should be some <i>compelling</i> reason to say that adults aren't allowed or capable of making choices to be like other members of society.

The "special status" gained by allowing gays to get married is marriage tax status, the ability to share insurance policies, make visits in hospitals when someone gets sick, and to handle funerals in a reasonable way as a survivor. These are fundamentally rights that people who care for each other that are in committed relationships should be able to have.

I can understand people objecting to it as being a traditional institution sactioned by the church, but not from a rights perspective.

By that defenition, the golden rule and telling the truth are deviant behaviors.
And besides, who can tell if a marriage is successful? Success is relative.

All but the tax status can be gained through contractual agreements, without forcing corporations who may disagree with homosexuality to subsidize it through sharing of benefits. And if you take out religion, the basis for marriage is financial, and has nothing to do with caring for each other or being in a committed relationship. Marriage is a way to join two families through blood, or in the industrial age, to give an opportunity for people to support and raise their children. Love, being generally temporary, is a recent component into marriage and has no basis in a logical discussion of the benefits to society for allowing gay marriage.

So they are. I guess defining a certain behavior as deviant as a means to denounce said behavior is a little silly then.

I'm defining success as not ending in a divorce. Let me know what your definition of a succesful marriage is.

My god, the thread... it's ALIVE. :|
Playing devils advocate here, but when was the last time you heard of someone getting married solely to join two families?

A behaviour doesn't need defining as to whether it is deviant or not. Deviant is being at odds with societal norms.
As a side note, I hardly believe telling the truth is in the minority, as most of the time you are talking about something, you're telling the truth without thinking about it being the truth.

Would you define a successful marriage as one that drags on despite both participants desperately wanting out of it?

I wasn't using the deviant tag to denounce homosexuality. I was stating that homosexual behavior is out of the mainstream, and does not deserve special status over other non-mainstream behavior patterns.

It hasn't happened in America to my knowledge in a long time, but I was trying to put a historical perspective on marriage. It is still common to arrange marriages in many places around the world, however.

Yeah I know people who have had arranged marriages in Pakistan, but we aren't really talking about Pakistan.
edit: occassionally royal families in europe still do it :thumbsup:

I was pointing out that succesful marriages are out of the mainstream, and so should not deserve special status over things that are practiced by the majority of americans.


I don't understand. Are you saying that behavior shouldn't be able to be defined as deviant?

Well, i think anyone who wants to protect the traditional (read religious) definition of marriage would say that any marriage ending in divorce is unsuccessful.

I think there is a difference between a successful relationship and a successful marriage.

I'm saying a behaviour isn't defined as deviant at all (by people). It either is or isn't deviant based on the currents norms within a society.
Well I'm not protecting the religious definition.

A current norm in american society is that marriage is disposable.

Not to be brisk, but i'm more concerned with alansmithee's opinion on this than yours.

I would disagree with that. Most people do not enter into marriage thinking it is disposable, they believe it will be permanent.

As for the definition of a sucessful marriage, I stated before it is relative. Since there is no objective definiton, I believe using that as a metric for government support is wrong. And as for religious tradition, I personally try to leave religion out of debates because it is not something that can be proven or disputed with logic and reason. Therefore, I don't think that the traditional religious basis of a sucessful marriage could be used to set up a standard for deviant behavior.

And honestly, with the rising divorce rate, I personally have started believing that marriage should be harder to attain. I think marriage (and the governmental, legal, and financial benefits relating to it) should be limited to a man and women who are planning to have children. I believe this would limit greatly many societal ills, but that is really off-topic.

But having those beliefs, I don't think homosexuals should be allowed marriage or civil unions. Society gains nothing out of it, and there is no inherent right to marriage. I have no problem with the religious marriages (which are being performed) but I don't favor any special status. Many of the same benefits which have no outside cost to businesses or the government can be attained if desired by contractual agreements between two people (namely inheritance, hospital visits, and child custody).

from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

<i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the <b>pursuit of happiness</b></i>.

Our society is built upon the belief that individuals are allowed to persue happiness. This is highly ingrained in the American consciousness. The majority of Americans believe that the ability to make what you want out of life is important to the American dream. The deprivation of allowing people to get married that love each other, are committed, and are upstanding citizens flies right in the face of the values set forth by our founding fathers. We believe that society is better off when individuals are their happiest.

You show me a lawyer citing the Declaration of Independence as legal precedent, and i'll show you a lawyer about to lose their case. Notice how none of that language was put in the Constitution, which is what law is based on.

Aww, and I thought you loved me.

Whether they think it or not, marriage is disposable. That is what divorce is. It is a means of disposing of an unwanted marriage. Your "relative" definition for a successful marriage is maybe commendable, but it completely dodges the issue. Marriage is a commitment, divorce is a failed commitment and a failed marriage. Success can be relative, but not when we have clearly defined goals.

You can't claim that society gains nothing out of it because that statement by itself means nothing. It is a broad statement that is impossible to support credibly.

Equality is not special status. If you truly didn't favor special status you would be against marriage benefits for anyone, not just the homosexuals.

I think the idea that we must protect business from having to provide benefits to gay people is silly. Businesses should not be free to discriminate.

I just love your doggy style.;)

They sure as hell need to take the whole forever and eternity shpeel out of wedding vows,
"to have and to hold in health and monetary posperity until I find you in bed with my best friend or you run into me with the girl at the office sometime, lose my job, or otherwise sometime in the next 5 years." "I do."

You just opened yourself a can of worms right there buddy. :P
The flaw of the statistical definition of deviance, which you just stated, is that it labels everyone as deviant, and in multiple different ways. It is actually one of the worst definitions of deviant available.

A better definition, although likely not the best, is that deviance is activity that is labelled as such, and the viewpoint that said activity is deviant is shared by "society", society being the majority of the people within a demographic region.

You made a mistake bringing that up in a thread with someone who just happens to be both semantically inclined, and of high interest in the field of deviance.

No, i just demonstrated, with your help, that the word deviance, as it is often used in the "anything i don't like is deviant" context, is completely meaningless. Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, being based on how people define normal, as opposed to what normal actually is. Using your definition devalues rational argument in favor of the whims of the majority.

Besides, everyone is deviant. I am a deviant. You are a deviant. It's not so bad not being a robot, is it?

Like I said, it's not the best definition, but it came to mind, and it's a damn sight better than the statistical definition. Anyways, depending which definition you use (and there are some that are more widely-used, speaking in academic circles), deviance can mean a lot of things. Despite this, just because behaviour is weird to you, it doesn't make it deviant. So you don't have to be a robot to be a non-deviant (although I'd classify myself as deviant with most definitions), just good at following rules.

Also, the robot thing is, again, dependent on who you talk to. There are a number of people who consider human beings to be simply biological robots.

I hear you. It's just that so often, especially in arguments against homosexuality, certain words are used by people who haven't thought about the words enough to know that they aren't really saying what they think they are saying.

True dat. Like I said, I'm semantically-inclined (forgot to mention that I enjoy being facetious, dastardly, and just plain annoying), so it was purely in that regard that I had to disagree.

I know what you mean by people just throwing around words or "facts" that are really just completely subjective, and using them to fuel an argument. Makes mah blood boil. ;)

Businesses discriminate daily. It's called the hiring process. It's when people are allowed to work for a company based on behaviors they may or may not have taken in the past. If I take part in behaviour that the owners of a company does not approve of, they should not be forced to subsidize it.

Homosexuality is not a corporate issue, it is a societal issue and therefor falls into the mainstream of public domain.

There is a huge difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation, and discrimination based on work ethic, or experience.

By your definition, I should be able to hire only those people who I personally like, and pass on anyone who disagrees with me. Would it be Okay for a Gay corporate executive to hire only other Gays? Or do you think there would be a bit of an outcry from the Public. What if Bill Gates was Gay and all 200,000 MS employees were Gay as well?

yeah...i'm glad that's true. I never hire irish, or any other bloody papists for that matter. And i'd rather go out of business than hire colored folk.

I'd go on further...but i've used up all the anachronistic ethnic and racial slurs i can think of. Point is...employers don't have a right to hire based on idenitity and lifestyle, but ONLY characteristics relevant to the job.

I hate to criticise you, again, but this is a strange statement.

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.

This is what happens when you try to apply the term deviant to one persons beliefs.
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole.

Perhaps the default Windows colour schemes would be better than they are now.
Well, except in cases of affirmative action.

You have....as Usual, answered my question by dodging it. I would very much like your take on this, Perhaps if I clarify:

If indeed it is acceptable for a company to hire individuals based on personal bias, or discomfort with an aspect of chosen lifestyle. Is it then, also acceptable for Society as a whole to accept the obvious discrimination, and instead work through economic means (boycott, Advertisement, etc...) to correct what is percieved as a wrong?

Or does the lack of majority, make the percieved wrong by the minority irrelevant in a civilized society?

The only reason affirmative action has been put into place is to try to fix some of the fuckups of institutionalised and personal racism. Maybe if you didn't live somewhere that actually has cities split up between "black" communities, "white" communities, and whatever else, you wouldn't have cause to piss and moan over affirmative action. IF YOU ARE BETTER QUALIFIED, YOU WILL GET THE JOB.

Well, I wasn't arguing this point at all, just trying to inject some humour.
But since you're interested, yes I think companies should be able to hire whoever they please. It would also be acceptable (as it is now) to boycott a business for any reason you see fit.
If someone opens a business called Jose's Hispanic Accountants and employs only hispanic folk, you have every right to tell all your friends "hey dont go to Jose's, he's a racist fker".
Now back in reality, Jose actually does open an accountanting firm. I (a white guy) apply for an open position and to fill his quota of white folk he hires me. Do I want to work for someone who hates me? Fuck no.
I take it you're talking about the US. I'm not a US resident but as it happens my city does have an ethnic divide. Not enforced, out of the residents' choice.
Actually, no, that's the whole point of affirmitive action. Applicants of whatever ethnic origin are given preference in order to fill quotas, so your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Sure, whatever, let's go off on another tangent, shall we?

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.[/quote]

Even if i was one of the people "slamming your natural predisposition statement", it isn't even relevant to the idea of deviance. It would seem to me, by your assertion that nobody is limited by society's expectations of them, that it would be inconsistent of you to acknowledge the existence of deviance at all.

But no, your right, there is no objective reality. There are no statistics. We cannot use these nonexistent statistics to determine what kind of behavior the majority engages in. All we have are the intangible opinions of the majority. :rolleyes:

Deviancy can be taken as relative to society as a whole, but society as a whole is irrational and shortsighted. If you want to denounce a behavior on the sole basis that society frowns upon it than you haven't put a lot of thought into what you're saying. If you have that much faith in the wisdom of groupthink than just stop arguing with me right now please because we will never see eye to eye.

If you look at deviance in terms of what people actually do, instead of what they think everyone else is and should be doing, you will see that deviance can easily be defined as the behavior the majority engages in rather than the behavior the majority accepts.

Our society is structured around unemployment. The Fed actually bases its entire economic policy around the reserve of employers. Full employment is considered bad economically by the Fed, because it creates competition for employees which creates upward pressure on wages (which will theorhetically cause businesses to lose money and ruin the economy). In any event, unemployment and a need for jobs in this system is a constant, and more of an imminent problem for people of historically impoverished groups than others. You might not be strapped for cash, but there are hundreds of thousands of people that will take a job that will get the bills paid if they could, even if the social climate isn't that great (or just bad). And truly, there are all kinds of harassment laws and unfair practice laws that are meant to protect employees from other employees and their employers. Boycotts are helpful when the law is failing, however, I don't think that is should be the #1 tool of choice for solving problems when we have laws that are meant to protect people. Boycotts typically hurt the economy and burn bridges rather than build bridges.

I think you're mischaracterizing Affirmative Action like most people do. Affirmative Action states that employers/schools are to take every <i>reasonable</i> action to level the playing field and to set <i>reasonable</i> <b>goals</b> for employment/enrollment of minorities. If goals aren't met and there is documentation that all reasonable efforts were made to meet those goals, then the chances of a case being filed against the school or business are very low. There are no quotas. For more information see Facts on Executive Order 11246 - Affirmative Action .

Additionally, it is very important to note that the vast wealth of the United States has been predicated on a system of exploitation. Previously, of course, the exploited class of people were African America slaves. After Reconstruction, if you know our history, freed slaves had so many barriers to economic success that their ability to rise up the economic ladder were ridiculously small. You can claim a sort of indignant stance that you only want to work for people that like you, but that does not create a social structure where enough of your people are employers to provide jobs that will give you enough money to live on. I think it is absolutely necessary to have laws and checks and balances to prevent and break down institutionalized racism and prejudice (women and homosexuals, for instance) to help create the society that best serves all of its citizens of all walks of life. Typically, the arguments against this, as I see them, are based on beliefs of people that are afraid of losing their privilige and think that laws that help level the playing field are allowing minorities to oppress the majority. And typically, this is not the case, and the exceptions where the laws didn't work perfectly get blown up in the media. Affirmative Action has had more successes than failures, which is better than a laissez-faire approach to employment/enrollment historically has had. This is not to say that Affirmative Action could use some reworkings, but it is better than nothing.

If everyone acts a certain way because they want to, that's different to everyone acting a certain way because they're expected to. The observable result is still the same.

On the other point it seems I misunderstood you, and then you misunderstood me. We're on the same plane though, effectively.

I don't live in the US so perhaps some of the details are different.
There's always the folk who aren't racist/sexist/whatever. I would have thought that overtly racist companies would do a lot less trade than their competitors, evening out the playing field somewhat.