Aug 11, 2011 -- 10:48PM, mountain_man wrote:

Aug 11, 2011 -- 10:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The gold standard, the ideal, the over-all best is biological, married parents.

No, it is not. That it is is just a claim made by the religious right. As usual, the religious right is not right.

Any denial of that is simply ignoring the obvious, and is rooted in adults trying to make themselves feel better about themselves.

No, understanding otherwise is acknowledging that kids raised in a loving, nurturing, supportive, family is the "gold standard."

The very science you claim to tout has done inumerable studies on the subject. Google "the importance of a father in a girl's development" just for starters. Then, perhaps try "gender differences" and "the biological parent-child bond." Then perhaps, "adopted children seach for their bilogical parents."

Trying to argue against reality is the very definition of irrational. And, as I've noticed, all the efforts to deny the innate superiority of biological, happily married, opposite-gender parenting is completely irrational. It's based in rationalizations by adults trying to make themselves feel better about themselves, and not really, truley what is best for children.

Also, please note -- although I have made it abundantly clear many times already -- I'm not against gay parenting. Any more than I'm against step/adoptive/blended family parenting (as I am in exactly that same situation myself.) Nor any other alternative family structure by which to raise children.

What I'm arguing against is a defensive, irrational denial of very plain, clear reality. There are alternatives.  Gay parenting is one. Step/adoptive/blended family parenting is another. And the list goes on and on.

But "equality" does not exist. Clearly, one system is, overall, superior to all others.

Aug 15, 2011 -- 9:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The very science you claim to tout has done inumerable studies on the subject. Google "the importance of a father in a girl's development" just for starters. ...

None of those make the claim that you have. The rest you just made up.

Trying to argue against reality is the very definition of irrational.

Then you should stop doing it.

I have to agree with mytmouse on this one. We aren't seahorses or amoeba. We are human animals with the right to think. That doesn't give humans the right to think they can change the rules because it's popular or cool. Love, for all that it's worth isn't enough.

I have Gay Family Members. I love them to death, but they are the very last people I would go to for raising children. They are beloved family, but with my/our listening to them over the course of 40+ years, very little of their well-intended input worked and this fact we all (the Family) keep secret from them. They are all Christians and they attend Church regularly where they live, but it ain't just the same when it comes to raising children. Children are not experiments. Raising children is not an experiment. Not that Hets are champions when it comes to this task, and believe me that I see it every day, but it flies in the face of a Natural Order, if I may. I do not agree totally with Gay adoption. I would not agree with my Gay Family Members doing it. They've all expressed themselves on this subject and they say they love the "freedom" they have. I dunno...

This is not hate speech. It's an IMO based upon long years, along with my long ears. Your ears get longer with age. You knew that didn't you?

Thanx,

Ur2         

My sister in law died about 2.5 years ago of breast cancer. Should my brother have gotten married the day after the funeral so the kids would have had 2 opposite sex parents?

 Kids in an orphanage over 6-12 months start to lose cognitive abilities.  Is that better than living with a single loving parent of any gender?  

Reteach, where do you get the idea that I am advocating a widower to get married the day after a spouse dies?