More On The Harm Of " Non-Traditional Families " (Was:fatherless boys) [Archive]

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 02:33 PM

Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually
do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and
more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims...

Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*,
either...

David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes:
The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at
http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf

In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men

Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in
children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article
Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the
University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan.
Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of
more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years of
their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study

...controlled for family background variables such as mother's educational
level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood
variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the neighborhood,
unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys raised
outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as
other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic
factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of
future incarceration by about five percent.
The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living with
just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal
behavior.

This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar
findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the
message when awarding custody. Single father homes have increased by 25
percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau.
------------------------------------------

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Trool

03-09-2004, 03:14 PM

Two points occur to me Andre. Firstly, if men choose to leave, and at
least some do, then theirs nothing we can do about that, save following
the Indonesian proposal that men who refuse to marry pregnant partners are
imprisoned.

I think that proposal will fail even in a country like Indonesia. Though I
may stand corrected on that. They have passed some very harsh laws for a
Democracy.

Secondly, I'd like to ask if there has been any research on the daughters
brought up by single fathers? It may well be that they suffer the same
identity crisis, though they may and probably do manifest it differently.

Trool

03-09-2004, 03:15 PM

Trool <norealaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns94A7EC848FC5965f4485g8@130.133.1.4:
theirs

scuse my spellcheck's typo :)

OffLine

03-09-2004, 03:23 PM

Damn GOOD news... I hope hyerdip****'s heart isn't being stung too hard by
this 'bad' news...

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2lgoj$5lb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, either... David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes: The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at
http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years
of their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study ...controlled for family background variables such as mother's
educational level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the
neighborhood, unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys
raised outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of future incarceration by about five percent. The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living
with just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal behavior. This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the message when awarding custody.

Single father homes have increased by 25 percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau. ------------------------------------------
I'd like to see some official stats to back that up though...it seems
toooooo gooooooood to be true.

Doug Anderson

03-09-2004, 03:53 PM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, either... David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes: The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years of their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study ...controlled for family background variables such as mother's educational level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the neighborhood, unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys raised outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of future incarceration by about five percent. The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living with just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal behavior. This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the message when awarding custody. Single father homes have increased by 25 percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau.

Again, Andre. This is possibly relevant to single mothers or to
mothers plus step-parents.

But it is completely irelevant to children raised intentially by gay
couples who have two parents beginning at infancy.

It seems like what you are doing is lumping all families that aren't
headed by the mother and father of the children together. But the
studies you cite don't support that at all.

JWB

03-09-2004, 04:32 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2lgoj$5lb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, either...

*Yes* *they* *can*

In *fact*, I *already* did. Look it *up*.

JWB

03-09-2004, 05:12 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:c2lpr4$o50$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
<laughs> You got... *nothing* !

He got you. Same thing, though.

Doug Anderson

03-09-2004, 06:50 PM

This is what your argument is like Andre. Maybe you can spot the
logical flaw below in the part of the argument that I've attributed to
a (only slightly) fictional version of you.

Andre: Fuel injected cars can't run. It is ABSURD to imagine a car
without a *carburator* running!!

JWB: I have a friend with a fuel injected car. It seems to get her
around fine.

Doug: I see no evidence that cars with fuel injection are any worse
than cars with carburation.

Andre: So you are saying that carburators are completely unnecessary.
Where is your proof?

Here are 37 studies that *conclusively* PROVE that cars need
carburators to run! They removed carburators from hundreds of cars,
and they _all_ stopped running.

Hypocrite much? Coward! You've proved my point *for* me. If
you weren't reading impaired, you'd see it yourself! (and more
driveling invective).

I've proven 37 times that cars with fuel injection can't work.
Where's *your* proof!

Caren

03-09-2004, 08:48 PM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kzptblh90y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, either... David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes: The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years of their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study ...controlled for family background variables such as mother's educational level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the neighborhood, unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys raised outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of future incarceration by about five percent. The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living with just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal behavior. This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the message when awarding custody. Single father homes have increased by 25 percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau. Again, Andre. This is possibly relevant to single mothers or to mothers plus step-parents. But it is completely irelevant to children raised intentially by gay couples who have two parents beginning at infancy. It seems like what you are doing is lumping all families that aren't headed by the mother and father of the children together. But the studies you cite don't support that at all.

Nor does the study address families in which the mother and father are
together and have a totally dysfunctional family where the FATHER IS
HOME and the kids end up all messed up. It is possible to be there
yet not be there.

Let's face it. No matter what we believe, we'll find an article that
supports our belief. However, one of the articles that I posted
talked about the jury being out on open adoptions. It was not pro nor
con. It just listed possiblities. Which I think is what most of us
believe in here...possiblities rather than strong anti feelings. This
stuff sure gets ugly. And why??? I have no good reason. Homophobia?
You can add that to your other list of reasons why. Andre is nuts so
"he" adds to MY "theory" that "anti-gays" are whacko.....if you had a
brain you'd know that. Andre...you sure are fun and I want to thank
you for the flavor that you bring here. I didn't say it was a good
flavor. It's just...a ...."flavor". God parenthesizing is tiring.

Andre Lieven

03-09-2004, 09:17 PM

Caren (caren50@msn.com) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kzptblh90y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, either... David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes: The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years of their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study ...controlled for family background variables such as mother's educational level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the neighborhood, unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys raised outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of future incarceration by about five percent. The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living with just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal behavior. This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the message when awarding custody. Single father homes have increased by 25 percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau. Again, Andre. This is possibly relevant to single mothers or to mothers plus step-parents. But it is completely irelevant to children raised intentially by gay couples who have two parents beginning at infancy. It seems like what you are doing is lumping all families that aren't headed by the mother and father of the children together. But the studies you cite don't support that at all. Nor does the study address families in which the mother and father are together and have a totally dysfunctional family where the FATHER IS HOME and the kids end up all messed up. It is possible to be there yet not be there.

Yet, thats the exception to the more common rules, as the studies
found.

Just because it's PC to downplay the critical importance of
fathers, doesn't make it be so.

But, thanks for showing that the only way you can see a gay couple
appearing not so bad, is to postulate them compared to the very
*worst* of bio families...

Statisticians would tell you that that loading is... dishonest.
Let's face it. No matter what we believe, we'll find an article that supports our belief.

Not all " articles " are created equal...

And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*...
However, one of the articles that I posted talked about the jury being out on open adoptions. It was not pro nor con.

IOW, it came down on the side of... nothing.
It just listed possiblities. Which I think is what most of us believe in here...possiblities rather than strong anti feelings.

Speak for yourself. I'm speaking from a POV of... evidence.
This stuff sure gets ugly. And why??? I have no good reason.

Because the " everything is OK " advocates stand, as has been
pointed out, for nothing at all.
Homophobia?

LOL ! I'll be sure to try that one out on my gay pals. They could
use the laffs...
You can add that to your other list of reasons why. Andre is nuts so "he" adds to MY "theory"

You MS-spelled " my prejudice, that is based on... emotions, only. "

Feel free to *post your mental health credentails*...
that "anti-gays" are whacko.....if you had a brain you'd know that.

Ah, so *on your sole say-so*, people who disagree with you are
" whacko " ?

Very... Soviet of you...
Andre...you sure are fun and I want to thank you for the flavor that you bring here.

OK...
I didn't say it was a good flavor.

That presumes that you are equipped to grasp " good ". Evidence
suggests that you're... not.
It's just...a ...."flavor". God parenthesizing is tiring.

Yeah, working your poor, tired neuron must wear you out...

Plus, all your knee-jerking, emotive-based calling others
who *dare* not to share your views, ill, must wear you out,
too.

Its hard work being a *proud, ignorant, bigot*... You'd
surely know...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni

03-09-2004, 09:43 PM

On 10 Mar 2004 05:17:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Caren (caren50@msn.com) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kzptblh90y.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually > do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and > more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... > > Betcha the asm " tolerance " crowd *can't* refute this *fact*, > either... > > David R. Throop (throop@cs.utexas.edu) writes: > The report from which Gallagher drew her facts can be viewed at > http://www.aboutdads.org/reports/Father_Absence_and_Youth_Incarceration.pdf > > In article <Gf2dnYnoAP043NvdRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, > bobb <bobbob@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men > > Here is yet another new study which confirms the importance of fathers in > children's lives. The Wall Street Journal, Maggie Gallagher's article > Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men reports on a study by the > University of California's Cynthia Harper and Princeton's Sara McLanahan. > Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database, the records of > more than 6,400 boys were studied over a period of approximately 20 years of > their development. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the study > > ...controlled for family background variables such as mother's educational > level, race, family income and number of siblings, as well as neighborhood > variables like the proportion of female-headed families in the neighborhood, > unemployment rates, median income and even cognitive ability.... Boys raised > outside of intact marriages are, on average, more than twice as likely as > other boys to end up jailed, even after controlling for other demographic > factors. Each year spent without a dad in the home increases the odds of > future incarceration by about five percent. > The study also confirmed the findings of other researchers: Boys living with > just their single fathers do not exhibit this increased rate of criminal > behavior. > > This latest study comes on the heels of several others with similar > findings, and perhaps some family courts are already beginning to get the > message when awarding custody. Single father homes have increased by 25 > percent in just three years, according to the US Census Bureau. Again, Andre. This is possibly relevant to single mothers or to mothers plus step-parents. But it is completely irelevant to children raised intentially by gay couples who have two parents beginning at infancy. It seems like what you are doing is lumping all families that aren't headed by the mother and father of the children together. But the studies you cite don't support that at all. Nor does the study address families in which the mother and father are together and have a totally dysfunctional family where the FATHER IS HOME and the kids end up all messed up. It is possible to be there yet not be there.Yet, thats the exception to the more common rules, as the studiesfound.Just because it's PC to downplay the critical importance offathers, doesn't make it be so.But, thanks for showing that the only way you can see a gay coupleappearing not so bad, is to postulate them compared to the very*worst* of bio families...Statisticians would tell you that that loading is... dishonest. Let's face it. No matter what we believe, we'll find an article that supports our belief.Not all " articles " are created equal...And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*...
Here you go Andre

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

http://www.lethimstay.com/wrong_socscience_expert.html
However, one of the articles that I posted talked about the jury being out on open adoptions. It was not pro nor con.IOW, it came down on the side of... nothing. It just listed possiblities. Which I think is what most of us believe in here...possiblities rather than strong anti feelings.Speak for yourself. I'm speaking from a POV of... evidence. This stuff sure gets ugly. And why??? I have no good reason.Because the " everything is OK " advocates stand, as has beenpointed out, for nothing at all. Homophobia?LOL ! I'll be sure to try that one out on my gay pals. They coulduse the laffs... You can add that to your other list of reasons why. Andre is nuts so "he" adds to MY "theory"You MS-spelled " my prejudice, that is based on... emotions, only. "Feel free to *post your mental health credentails*... that "anti-gays" are whacko.....if you had a brain you'd know that.Ah, so *on your sole say-so*, people who disagree with you are" whacko " ?Very... Soviet of you... Andre...you sure are fun and I want to thank you for the flavor that you bring here.OK... I didn't say it was a good flavor.That presumes that you are equipped to grasp " good ". Evidencesuggests that you're... not. It's just...a ...."flavor". God parenthesizing is tiring.Yeah, working your poor, tired neuron must wear you out...Plus, all your knee-jerking, emotive-based calling otherswho *dare* not to share your views, ill, must wear you out,too.Its hard work being a *proud, ignorant, bigot*... You'dsurely know...Andre

Doug Anderson

03-09-2004, 11:02 PM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*...

You can post as many articles as you want. If they are unrelated to
the point you were trying to make (as is the case here) they do not
bolster your case.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus

03-10-2004, 12:50 AM

In alt.support.marriage Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: This is what your argument is like Andre. Maybe you can spot the logical flaw below in the part of the argument that I've attributed to a (only slightly) fictional version of you. Andre: Fuel injected cars can't run. It is ABSURD to imagine a car without a *carburator* running!! JWB: I have a friend with a fuel injected car. It seems to get her around fine. Doug: I see no evidence that cars with fuel injection are any worse than cars with carburation. Andre: So you are saying that carburators are completely unnecessary. Where is your proof?

You missed another of his favorite phrases "the plural of anecdote is not
citation" or however it goes.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 07:00 AM

Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: This is what your argument is like Andre. Maybe you can spot the logical flaw below in the part of the argument that I've attributed to a (only slightly) fictional version of you. Andre: Fuel injected cars can't run. It is ABSURD to imagine a car without a *carburator* running!! JWB: I have a friend with a fuel injected car. It seems to get her around fine. Doug: I see no evidence that cars with fuel injection are any worse than cars with carburation. Andre: So you are saying that carburators are completely unnecessary. Where is your proof? You missed another of his favorite phrases "the plural of anecdote is not citation" or however it goes.

Indeed, and you *still fail to understand it*...

Such *studied and proud*... ignorance...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 07:03 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes:
More likely, if she's not in a relationship with another woman, she'll be raising the child alone. Is there any reason to believe that will be better for the children? The stats tell us that *both* such situations are sub-optimal, in similar amounts. Neither thus qualifies as anything " equivalent " to a marriage.

Actually you've provided no stats that show raising a child with
another woman is sub-optimal. Furthermore, I don't think there are
any such statistics.

That is the key point.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 07:13 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*... You can post as many articles as you want. Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move The True Believer... If they are unrelated to the point you were trying to make (as is the case here) they do not bolster your case. Handwaving, of the True Believer...

So you think posting unrelated articles _does_ bolster your case?

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 07:16 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes: More likely, if she's not in a relationship with another woman, she'll be raising the child alone. Is there any reason to believe that will be better for the children? The stats tell us that *both* such situations are sub-optimal, in similar amounts. Neither thus qualifies as anything " equivalent " to a marriage. Actually you've provided no stats that show raising a child with another woman is sub-optimal.

I gave you the books in which such data is available. I'm not
responsible to spoon feed you book length posts...
Furthermore, I don't think there are any such statistics.

Of course, you don't. How much *easier* to *pre-judge* the
whole issue, and just scream " La, la, la ! " when someone
shows you where it is.

How... studiously *ignorant* of you...
That is the key point.

Your willful and True Believer ignorance ?

I agree.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 07:24 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*... You can post as many articles as you want. Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move The True Believer... If they are unrelated to the point you were trying to make (as is the case here) they do not bolster your case. Handwaving, of the True Believer... So you think posting unrelated articles _does_ bolster your case?

Absurd. Its quite related. You just don't want to cop to that,
since it makes *total hash* of your True Belief.

Thats the process, though: First deny that the data exists, then,
when it's shoved under your nose, deny that it can be relevent.

Next, you'll say that studies about gays won't count, as they
won't involve Latvian bagpipe playing albino dwarf gays...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 07:37 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes: > More likely, if she's not in a > relationship with another woman, she'll be raising the child alone. Is > there any reason to believe that will be better for the children? The stats tell us that *both* such situations are sub-optimal, in similar amounts. Neither thus qualifies as anything " equivalent " to a marriage. Actually you've provided no stats that show raising a child with another woman is sub-optimal. I gave you the books in which such data is available.

No you didn't.

It is really very simple.

-Your data is about children raised by couples where
the mom and dad separated and the mom raised the child either alone,
or with a step-dad.

-No data on gay couples who chose to raise children.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 07:41 AM

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 07:42 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes:> > More likely, if she's not in a> > relationship with another woman, she'll be raising the child alone. Is> > there any reason to believe that will be better for the children?>> The stats tell us that *both* such situations are sub-optimal, in> similar amounts. Neither thus qualifies as anything " equivalent "> to a marriage. Actually you've provided no stats that show raising a child with another woman is sub-optimal. I gave you the books in which such data is available. No you didn't.

Denail...
It is really very simple.

You are...
-Your data is about children raised by couples where the mom and dad separated and the mom raised the child either alone, or with a step-dad.

Indeed. All situations that, *unlike with gay couples*, contain
BOTH a woman and a man...

So, it cannot be that gay couples will do *better*. All that
remains is *how much worse can they be*.

So, this research shows the *upper limit* of similar, but
*better situated couples*...
-No data on gay couples who chose to raise children.

Please *prove* that gay couples can do better, since they
CANNOT provide what the adoptive and step family couples
DO provide, a *father AND a mother*...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 07:50 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*...> >> > You can post as many articles as you want.>> Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move> The True Believer...>> > If they are unrelated to> > the point you were trying to make (as is the case here) they do not> > bolster your case.>> Handwaving, of the True Believer... So you think posting unrelated articles _does_ bolster your case? Absurd. Its quite related. You just don't want to cop to that, since it makes *total hash* of your True Belief. Thats the process, though: First deny that the data exists, then, when it's shoved under your nose, deny that it can be relevent. Of course that isn't the process. There is lots of data in the world.

Except for data that proves you to be *wrong*, because you've,
several times now, claimed that you don't " believe " ( The
operative word ) that " it doesn't *exist*... ".

Uh huh.
It just doesn't happen to be all interchangeable, as you seem to think it is.

You mean the way that *you believe* that " couples " of all sorts
are interchangable ?

Uh huh...
Oh well. As Dan Quayle said "It's a terrible think to lose one's mind, or not to have one."

You'd know...
Next, you'll say that studies about gays won't count, Of course we are _talking_ about gays. Note the complete absence of gays in the studies you keep mentioning.

Indeed. The study studied *better situated couples*.

Thus, at the *start, gay couples CANNOT provide a *father AND
a mother*...
as they won't involve Latvian bagpipe playing albino dwarf gays... If you were making claims about Latvian bagpipe playing albino dwarf gays, then if you wanted to support such claims you'd need to find evidence that addressed that group.

<yawn>
I know that's a tough concept for you.

<projection>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 08:16 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do with this research. No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide.

I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I
can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't
relate to the question at hand.

Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form
in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 08:29 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do with this research. No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't relate to the question at hand.

Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, and you
*still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple
can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother...
Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children.

Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*.

Cites ?

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 08:35 AM

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) writes:
In alt.support.marriage Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: This is what your argument is like Andre. Maybe you can spot the logical flaw below in the part of the argument that I've attributed to a (only slightly) fictional version of you. Andre: Fuel injected cars can't run. It is ABSURD to imagine a car without a *carburator* running!! JWB: I have a friend with a fuel injected car. It seems to get her around fine. Doug: I see no evidence that cars with fuel injection are any worse than cars with carburation. Andre: So you are saying that carburators are completely unnecessary. Where is your proof? You missed another of his favorite phrases "the plural of anecdote is not citation" or however it goes.

Yeah. And I forgot about "Non sequitur" thrown in so that it becomes
self-referential!

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 08:49 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*... You can post as many articles as you want. Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move The True Believer...

Facts might move me. You haven't presented any relevant facts. Or
even any relevant research.

As you might say "Free Clue:" If you are trying to make a point about
a certain population group and you wish to support it by research, it
is necessary that this research actually be about said population
group.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 09:06 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*... You can post as many articles as you want. Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move The True Believer... Facts might move me.

Thanks for making my point, once again.

People of honest values, will be moved by facts, *whether or
not they wish to come to the conclusions that the facts show*.

That you " may " be moved, shows that you reserve the " right "
to maintain *your prejudices over any facts you don't like*.

As you have already demonstrated...
You haven't presented any relevant facts. Or even any relevant research.

<yawn> Feel free to show gay couples with a *female mother AND
a male father*...

<laughs>
As you might say "Free Clue:" If you are trying to make a point about a certain population group and you wish to support it by research, it is necessary that this research actually be about said population group.

No. Statisticians routinely compare unlike groups, if they control
for other factors.

Otherwise, you could not, say, compare rates of problems
betwen disparate groups. So, you *deny* much of science.

Figures. The True Believer refuses to look at anything that
makes *hash* of their belief...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 10:23 AM

spammy

03-10-2004, 11:46 AM

Caren wrote: A woman needs the written consent of the father of her child before relinquishing her child. Without it, a search must be performed and if that fails (many fathers to be do a good job of hiding) then there must be a declaration posted in the newspaper, once a week, for 4 consecutive weeks before the child is legally free.

I've seen laws like this. You know what? They're useless. Mothers
routinely lie about the name and address of the father in order to
sabotage the search, and no father who is unaware of the child is going
to read the newspaper for notices thereof. The mother cannot be
penalized for lying, and the father has no recourse if he finds out
afterwards. Your assertion that the mother cannot unilaterally adopt is
not borne out by the facts.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 12:35 PM

Tsam Nami

03-10-2004, 12:45 PM

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
wrote in message news:c2n895$sjm$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes: "Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca>" wrote: Those advocating the further destruction of familes that actually do raise healthy kids, by proportion, should see that more and more, the *evidence* stacks up *against their faith-based* claims... , and went on to cite a paper about problems of fatherless boys. And, theres plenty more such data... Assume we stipulate that these statistics are correct and have been validly interpreted, what conclusions about public policy do you believe should be reached? That marriage ought to be legally strengthened,
[snip suggsted remedies]

[snip following arguments about men & abortion rights etc.]

When a long-time opponent of monogamy on ASM
claims to be a supporter of marriage,
I don't see the claim as credible.
--
Tsam

Tsam Nami

03-10-2004, 12:45 PM

"Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3754f0b3.0403092048.58d1d9b8@posting.google.c om...

[snip her credible assertions contrary to Andre's argument]
Andre is nuts so "he" adds to MY "theory" that "anti-gays" are whacko.....if you had a brain you'd know that.

There are sincere opponents of gay marriage in ASM
who make straightforward arguments.
IMO, Andre's rhetorical tricks do not reflect on them.

I don't expect my arguments in favor of gay marriage
to convince them,
but we can understand why each other believes as we do.

(When this issue explodes
with the scary fundamentalists in my family
-- who care for my estranged mother,
I hope to be able to state my beliefs
in such a way that she can respect them
and see my respect for those who disagree,
so a minimum of further distance is created between us.
That seems to be my real agenda for arguing with friends on ASM
whom I don't expect to change from their sincere beliefs.)
--
Tsam

Trool

03-10-2004, 02:27 PM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in
news:c2ncn7$a0h$1@freenet9.carleton.ca:
Again, search on those laws. If any woman puts " unknown " on the birth certificate, there is NO man TO inform. A recent attempt to pass a law where such women would have to place ads in local papers, to try to inform such men, of the existance of a child,w as loudly shouted down by NOW, et al. So, this responsibility on women either simply does not exist, or can be easily circumvented.

I agree but surely it's a fact of nature that the woman will always be
there at the birth while the man may not. No laws will change this. It's
like trying to legislate about women living longer than men.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 04:21 PM

"Tsam Nami" (tsam-nami@tidal.wav) writes: "Caren" <caren50@msn.com> wrote in message news:3754f0b3.0403092048.58d1d9b8@posting.google.c om... [snip her credible assertions contrary to Andre's argument] Andre is nuts so "he" adds to MY "theory" that "anti-gays" are whacko.....if you had a brain you'd know that. There are sincere opponents of gay marriage in ASM who make straightforward arguments. IMO, Andre's rhetorical tricks do not reflect on them.

Who ever said that my opinions " ought to " ?

Guilt by group, eh ? How... Soviet.
I don't expect my arguments in favor of gay marriage to convince them, but we can understand why each other believes as we do.

And, I *do* understand. Thats what frosts your cookies.

That proponents of " alternative lifestyles " fail to
grasp that the freedom to live as one will, applies to
adults. Who don't necessarily have a " right " to inflict
such on *children who never got to choose that lifestyle*.

We say " do it for the children ", but the fur flies,
when someone actually says " hey, how about you actually
LIVE those words, rather than merely mouthing them
emptily ? ".
(When this issue explodes with the scary fundamentalists in my family -- who care for my estranged mother, I hope to be able to state my beliefs in such a way that she can respect them and see my respect for those who disagree, so a minimum of further distance is created between us. That seems to be my real agenda for arguing with friends on ASM whom I don't expect to change from their sincere beliefs.)

Well, don't go trying to hang religion on my views: I'm
an *atheist*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 04:34 PM

Trool (norealaddress@hotmail.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in news:c2ncn7$a0h$1@freenet9.carleton.ca: Again, search on those laws. If any woman puts " unknown " on the birth certificate, there is NO man TO inform. A recent attempt to pass a law where such women would have to place ads in local papers, to try to inform such men, of the existance of a child, was loudly shouted down by NOW, et al. So, this responsibility on women either simply does not exist, or can be easily circumvented. I agree but surely it's a fact of nature

Bzt. The topic is *legal rights and responsibilities*. Nature
is *irrelevent*.

Or, if I were to grant your silly premise, then this: Nature equips
any man to *walk away*. Its LAWS that *prevent his* nature from
being used.

So, its clear that apologists for femi-centric *laws* are
hypocrites, when they invoke " nature ", for the *woman, only*.
that the woman will always be there at the birth while the man may not. No laws will change this. It's like trying to legislate about women living longer than men.

Or, like trying to legislate about men *paying for women's
sole choices' consequences* ?

Funny how femi-apologists don't like laws, when they give men
*equal rights*, but love them, when the money is made to flow
FROM men TO women...

" Show me the money ! " Jerry McGuire.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni

03-10-2004, 04:42 PM

On 10 Mar 2004 12:35:38 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> >> >> And, at least I *posted one*. The PC gay advocates posted... *zip*...> >> >> >> > You can post as many articles as you want.> >>> >> Of course. Your mind *is already made up*. NO facts will move> >> The True Believer...> >> > Facts might move me.>> Thanks for making my point, once again.>> People of honest values, will be moved by facts, *whether or> not they wish to come to the conclusions that the facts show*. Hmm. Even if the facts confirm what they already suspect? " If " being your straw women operative word. Facts show otherwise. Thanks for playing True Believer...> That you " may " be moved, shows that you reserve the " right "> to maintain *your prejudices over any facts you don't like*. It means that the facts would have to be different from what I already believed in order to have an effect. <yawn> You also have to... look at them. As you have already said that you don't believe they exist, *and* as you made erroneous claims about the cited materials, it follows that you failed to check them. Anyhow, in this argument it is irrelevant since you've presented no facts about parenting by gay couples. Insane. Statistical sampling of similar groups IS scientifically valid.Sometims statistical sampling of similar groups is valid. Sometimesit isn't. But again this is irrelevant since the group of lesbian orgay parents who've adopted children is not similar at all to parentswho have had children and then broken up.

I wonder if Andre thinks it is better to be in a third world orphanage
than to be adopted by a gay *family*!snip Ah, so *you* get to say who's " second rate " ? Really ? When did you get to review JAMA ?Are you wanting to compare credentials again? I wouldn't bring thatup if I were you.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 08:27 PM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do > with this research. No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't relate to the question at hand. Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared,

Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children
raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children
raised by gay parents.
and you *still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother...

What's to address?
Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children. Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*.

All kinds of couples break up.

Andre Lieven

03-10-2004, 08:51 PM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do> > with this research.>> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and*> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't relate to the question at hand. Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children raised by gay parents.

You just... *contradicted* yourself...

<laughs>
and you *still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother... What's to address?

Illiteracy, again ?
Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children. Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*. All kinds of couples break up.

Non sequitur. Not all types of couples break up at *the same
rates*...

For more on simple actuarial tables, contact your insurance
carrier. You may be *shocked*, I tell you, to find out that
they, in the business of understanding such things so as to
make money from them, DO understand that not all humans are
freely interchangable, as you seem to insanely Truely
Believe...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-10-2004, 09:02 PM

Rauni

03-10-2004, 09:37 PM

On 11 Mar 2004 04:51:15 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do >> > with this research. >> >> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* >> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. > > I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I > can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't > relate to the question at hand. Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children raised by gay parents.You just... *contradicted* yourself...<laughs> and you *still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother... What's to address?Illiteracy, again ? > Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form > in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children. Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*. All kinds of couples break up.Non sequitur. Not all types of couples break up at *the samerates*...For more on simple actuarial tables, contact your insurancecarrier. You may be *shocked*, I tell you, to find out thatthey, in the business of understanding such things so as tomake money from them, DO understand that not all humans arefreely interchangable, as you seem to insanely TruelyBelieve...Andre

Insurance companies *don't* tabulate marriage break ups. Geez do you
even *know* what an actuary does? Hint look up morbidly and mortality.
Actuaries don't give a rats *** about marriages.

Proof positive that Andre doesn't know what he is talking about.

Rauni

03-10-2004, 09:39 PM

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:02:17 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do> >> > with this research.> >>> >> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and*> >> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide.> >> > I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I> > can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't> > relate to the question at hand.>> Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children raised by gay parents. You just... *contradicted* yourself...No, I didn't. Is your reading ability failing further? <laughs>> and you> *still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple> can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother... What's to address? Illiteracy, again ?> > Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form> > in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children.>> Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*. All kinds of couples break up. Non sequitur. Not all types of couples break up at *the same rates*...There is that phrase again. What do you think "non sequitur" means?

Clearly not. And you would not be the first person to tell Andre he is
not using the phrase correctly.

Bill in Co.

03-10-2004, 10:29 PM

Rauni wrote: On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:02:17 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>>>>> So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing to do>>>>> with this research.>>>>>>>> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and*>>>> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide.>>>>>> I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I>>> can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't>>> relate to the question at hand.>>>> Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared,>> Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children> raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children> raised by gay parents. You just... *contradicted* yourself... No, I didn't. Is your reading ability failing further? <laughs>>> and you>> *still can't/won't* address the *basic fact* that NO gay couple>> can provide a child with a male father AND a female mother...>> What's to address? Illiteracy, again ?>>> Your research is about familes that have kids, break up, and re-form>>> in new ways. Not relevant to gay couples who choose to have children.>>>> Gay couples never break up ? Wow, what *an amazing claim*.>> All kinds of couples break up. Non sequitur. Not all types of couples break up at *the same rates*... There is that phrase again. What do you think "non sequitur" means? Clearly not. And you would not be the first person to tell Andre he is not using the phrase correctly.

For a little variety, maybe he could switch to "ibid" for awhile. I think
it's been awhile since we've seen that one. The other ones are pretty worn
out by now. (Are there 5 of them?)

Trool

03-11-2004, 01:43 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in
news:c2obv7$l6u$1@freenet9.carleton.ca:
This is the reef that your asumptions founder upon. That you still view *a man as being responsible for what the women, and the woman, ALONE, gets to choose*...

You seem to be disagreeing with a lot of things I haven't said. So let me
make this perfectly clear. I don't believe in the idea of maintenance at
all! I already said "I don't think father's should be financially liable
for all their siring." I said this in Message-ID:
<Xns94A8E3B21E15565f4485g8@130.133.1.4>

You also seem to be saying that nature is irrelevant to law. I think
you're wrong. Mothers could always run off with the father's baby and that
was the case long before American law existed. Theirs no point in laws
that can't be enforced.

Andre Lieven

03-11-2004, 07:08 AM

Doug Anderson

03-11-2004, 07:13 AM

Andre Lieven

03-11-2004, 07:56 AM

Doug Anderson

03-11-2004, 08:15 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> > >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> >> > >> >> >> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing >> >> >> > to do with this research. >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* >> >> >> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. >> >> > >> >> > I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I >> >> > can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't >> >> > relate to the question at hand. >> >> >> >> Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, >> > >> > Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children >> > raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children >> > raised by gay parents. >> >> You just... *contradicted* yourself... > > No, I didn't. Is your reading ability failing further? " Yes, they can be ". Then, you deny that. Fatherlessness is fatherlessness. Period. Right. This is the "cars with fuel injection don't work" argument. No, that is what you *wish* that it were AND what the *evidence* shows to be what I said it was; A major problem, which cannot be fixed by other methods. See Braver, Farrell, and Blankenhorn for proof of your claim being *fictional*...

Oh dear. It is a shame that you have to always use the same sources,
whether they support your contention or not.

I'll point out again, none of these studies examine parenting by gay
parents where the child is one wanted by both parents from birth. So
they are completely inapplicable to the question of whether outcomes
from parenting by gays differ from outcomes from parenting by
straights.

No matter how often you bring up these studies, they still don't
address this point.

Andre Lieven

03-11-2004, 08:32 AM

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> >> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> >> >> >> >> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing> >> >> >> > to do with this research.> >> >> >>> >> >> >> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and*> >> >> >> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide.> >> >> >> >> >> > I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I> >> >> > can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't> >> >> > relate to the question at hand.> >> >>> >> >> Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared,> >> >> >> > Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children> >> > raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children> >> > raised by gay parents.> >>> >> You just... *contradicted* yourself...> >> > No, I didn't. Is your reading ability failing further?>> " Yes, they can be ". Then, you deny that.>> Fatherlessness is fatherlessness. Period. Right. This is the "cars with fuel injection don't work" argument. No, that is what you *wish* that it were AND what the *evidence* shows to be what I said it was; A major problem, which cannot be fixed by other methods. See Braver, Farrell, and Blankenhorn for proof of your claim being *fictional*... Oh dear. It is a shame that you have to always use the same sources, whether they support your contention or not.

<projection>
I'll point out again, none of these studies examine parenting by gay parents where the child is one wanted by both parents from birth.

Utterly *irrelevent*. That scenario is *the same* for the purposes
of assessing *fatherlessness* or *motherlessness*.

NO scenario studied would ameliorate either, in any menaingful
way, *regardless* of the specific case causes of it.

If fact, Blankenhorn *shows that having a step parent can actually
be *worse for the child*, and what you are postulating IS a *step
parent* situation. Pure and basic.
So they are completely inapplicable to the question of whether outcomes from parenting by gays differ from outcomes from parenting by straights.

Thanks for again pointing out that you agreed that similar things
can be compared... *until they get to your pet True Beliefs*...

Hypocrite much ? Indeed, you do...
No matter how often you bring up these studies, they still don't address this point.

Your waffling *fails to adress the point of fatherlessness and/or
motherlessness.

Thus, NO gay couple *can avoid* both.

Case closed.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson

03-11-2004, 09:35 AM

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> > >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> >> > >> >> >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> >> >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So what you've explained here is that your beliefs have nothing >> >> >> >> > to do with this research. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Based on the *research* that shows that kids NEED fathers *and* >> >> >> >> mothers, which, by *self-definition*, NO gay couple can provide. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'll say it one more time, in words of as close to one syllable as I >> >> >> > can get: The volume of the research is unimportant if it doesn't >> >> >> > relate to the question at hand. >> >> >> >> >> >> Nonsense. Comparable things can be properly compared, >> >> > >> >> > Yes, they can be. But the studies you cite don't compare children >> >> > raised by gay parents with anything since they don't _study_ children >> >> > raised by gay parents. >> >> >> >> You just... *contradicted* yourself... >> > >> > No, I didn't. Is your reading ability failing further? >> >> " Yes, they can be ". Then, you deny that. >> >> Fatherlessness is fatherlessness. Period. > > Right. This is the "cars with fuel injection don't work" argument. No, that is what you *wish* that it were AND what the *evidence* shows to be what I said it was; A major problem, which cannot be fixed by other methods. See Braver, Farrell, and Blankenhorn for proof of your claim being *fictional*... Oh dear. It is a shame that you have to always use the same sources, whether they support your contention or not. <projection> I'll point out again, none of these studies examine parenting by gay parents where the child is one wanted by both parents from birth. Utterly *irrelevent*. That scenario is *the same* for the purposes of assessing *fatherlessness* or *motherlessness*.

You asserting that it is the same does not make it so.
NO scenario studied would ameliorate either, in any menaingful way, *regardless* of the specific case causes of it. If fact, Blankenhorn *shows that having a step parent can actually be *worse for the child*, and what you are postulating IS a *step parent* situation. Pure and basic.

No, it isn't. Typically step parents are "accidental parents." Their
interest is in their spouse, not in the children. (This doesn't mean
they aren't sometimes very good parents; it can go either way.)

On the other hand, if a gay couple has a child, then it is because
they have decided they want to raise a child together. So both of
them are wanting the child from day one.

Can you understand this difference? Can you see how criticial it is?

Bob

03-11-2004, 07:28 PM

Doug Anderson wrote: But of course the current situation is that gay partners in a long-term relationship also produce and raise children.

No they don't. Lisa and Mary never produce a child together. Neither
do Adam and Steve. That old lie don't fly. Lies like that are part of
what makes rump rider advocates look so dishonest.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Doug Anderson

03-11-2004, 07:36 PM

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: But of course the current situation is that gay partners in a long-term relationship also produce and raise children. No they don't. Lisa and Mary never produce a child together. Neither do Adam and Steve. That old lie don't fly. Lies like that are part of what makes rump rider advocates look so dishonest.

It really doesn't matter whether they've conceived the child together
if they _raise_ the child together. It is in the childraising that
the marriage matters to society, not in the act of conception.

Bob

03-11-2004, 07:45 PM

Doug Anderson wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> writes:Doug Anderson wrote:But of course the current situation is that gay partners in along-term relationship also produce and raise children.No they don't. Lisa and Mary never produce a child together. Neitherdo Adam and Steve. That old lie don't fly. Lies like that are partof what makes rump rider advocates look so dishonest. It really doesn't matter whether they've conceived the child together

Yes, it is the core of the matter. No two women or two men have ever
formed a marriage and produced a child. Only a man and woman can form a
marriage.

if they _raise_ the child together. It is in the childraising that the marriage matters to society, not in the act of conception.

The child always has his real father and mother somewhere. That is NOT
Adam and Steve, nor Mary and Mona. The child's mother and father
married to produce the child. That is the "marriage."

If two rump riders take a child from it's mother and father and try to
raise it they are abusing the child. The CHILD has a fundamental right
to HIS mother and father. Rump riders playing house do not supersede
the CHILD'S rights to HIS mother and father. Likewise for two lolly
lickers playing house.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Ellie

03-11-2004, 07:48 PM

Doug Anderson wrote:
It really doesn't matter whether they've conceived the child together if they _raise_ the child together. It is in the childraising that the marriage matters to society, not in the act of conception.

But traditionally, and in many societies today, the act of conception
is what is regulated within marriage. It's not nearly as irrelevant as you
make it sound, though in modern societies it doesn't matter -- but then,
nor does marriage! Today's marriage has been reduced to expression of
romantic feelings between a couple, with no more significance. If, as you say,
raising children in marriage was so important to society single parenthood
would be condemned, but it's not.

Doug Anderson

03-11-2004, 08:39 PM

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: It really doesn't matter whether they've conceived the child together if they _raise_ the child together. It is in the childraising that the marriage matters to society, not in the act of conception. But traditionally, and in many societies today, the act of conception is what is regulated within marriage.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. There used to be a tradition that
a child's legal father was the man to whom the mother was married at
the time of birth. So for example, it was important to be married
before the child was born so that the child wasn't a bastard.
It's not nearly as irrelevant as you make it sound,

I'm not trying to make it sound irrelevant. My point is that to the
extent that there is a benefit for society of marriage, that benefit
is in providing an (arguably) more stable family unit for _raising_
children.
though in modern societies it doesn't matter -- but then, nor does marriage! Today's marriage has been reduced to expression of romantic feelings between a couple, with no more significance.

That just isn't true. There are legal and financial consequences to
marriage. For many people these aren't important, but for some they
are and they become more so at end-of-life.
If, as you say, raising children in marriage was so important to society single parenthood would be condemned, but it's not.

Single parenthood may not be condemned, but it is held in
comparitively low esteem.

Ellie

03-12-2004, 05:50 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
In terms of the benefit to society (such as it is) of marriage, I think that currently it is around encouraging a stable family unit to raise children in, and not around producing children.

But this is an argument that is challenged all the time, by claiming
that since people who don't (or can't) have children do marry,
marriage is not primarily about rasing children (forget about
producing them). In fact, I think if the proponents of gay marriage
would put their emphasis the idea of "marriage is good for raising
children" instead of just the benefits to the couple, their argument
would have more merit. I yet have to hear the gay activists focus on
the point that they should get married because they are raising
children together and it's better for society if they did it inside
marriage. As is, the argument boils down to defining marriage as a
contract between two people for some benefits -- and as I've said,
there is no reason why this shouldn't be available to ALL people, gay
or not...

Ellie

03-12-2004, 06:42 AM

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
though in modern societies it doesn't matter -- but then, nor does marriage! Today's marriage has been reduced to expression of romantic feelings between a couple, with no more significance. That just isn't true. There are legal and financial consequences to marriage. For many people these aren't important, but for some they are and they become more so at end-of-life.

Of course. Marriage has significance for the couple themselves. What I
meant was from societal point of view. Whether one is married or not
doesn't change their standing in society, nor does the fate of
children if their parents are married or not. This wasn't so in the
past. Marriage meant more than just personal benefits to the couple.
And children of marriage were in a different social category than
those produced outside of it. This has all changed, and for most parts
for the better. But like any other positive change there are costs and
negative side-effects too.

Doug Anderson

03-12-2004, 07:18 AM

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: though in modern societies it doesn't matter -- but then, nor does marriage! Today's marriage has been reduced to expression of romantic feelings between a couple, with no more significance. That just isn't true. There are legal and financial consequences to marriage. For many people these aren't important, but for some they are and they become more so at end-of-life. Of course. Marriage has significance for the couple themselves. What I meant was from societal point of view. Whether one is married or not doesn't change their standing in society,

Well, this is really an exaggeration. Though it may depend on what
segment of society (western society is far from monolithic) they live
in.
nor does the fate of children if their parents are married or not.

This is probably closer to true.
This wasn't so in the past. Marriage meant more than just personal benefits to the couple. And children of marriage were in a different social category than those produced outside of it. This has all changed, and for most parts for the better. But like any other positive change there are costs and negative side-effects too.

JWB

03-12-2004, 09:40 AM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4051E445.2010403@hotmail.com...
Nope. On the whole the marriage and production of children is a HUGE expense to the couple. Since rump riders refuse to share the burden of producing the next generation of the society, they do not deserve to enjoy the modest benefits that society provides to those who do. On equity and civil rights grounds rump riders have chosen not to
participate.

so what about married couples that choose to not have kids. Or can't?

Bob

03-12-2004, 12:03 PM

JWB wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4051E445.2010403@hotmail.com...Nope. On the whole the marriage and production of children is a HUGEexpense to the couple. Since rump riders refuse to share the burden ofproducing the next generation of the society, they do not deserve toenjoy the modest benefits that society provides to those who do. Onequity and civil rights grounds rump riders have chosen not to participate. so what about married couples that choose to not have kids. Or can't?

At least they are trying. What about them?

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

JWB

03-12-2004, 12:54 PM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4052178E.5080208@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4051E445.2010403@hotmail.com...Nope. On the whole the marriage and production of children is a HUGEexpense to the couple. Since rump riders refuse to share the burden ofproducing the next generation of the society, they do not deserve toenjoy the modest benefits that society provides to those who do. Onequity and civil rights grounds rump riders have chosen not to participate. so what about married couples that choose to not have kids. Or can't? At least they are trying. What about them?

well, you seem to use having kids as the criteria for marital benefits. And
many of us are not "trying" - My wife and I do not ever want kids, and have
taken measures to prevent them. In fact, lots of couples don't want them
(and others can't). Are you advocating taking marriage away from these
people?

JWB

JWB

03-12-2004, 03:52 PM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40523599.90407@hotmail.com...
It's not about "benefits." I'm sure you must have considered the cost of children to your income, life style, etc., when you decided not to want kids. The government presumes that you are planning on children. If you are refusing children then you aren't really married and you essentially lied to society to get the license.

That's about as stupid a statement I've ever read here. I "lied" to
society... duh... like where does it say you *must* have children when you
get married?

How exactly does the government "presume" we are having children?

Bob

03-12-2004, 04:00 PM

JWB wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40523599.90407@hotmail.com...It's not about "benefits." I'm sure you must have considered the costof children to your income, life style, etc., when you decided not towant kids.The government presumes that you are planning on children. If you arerefusing children then you aren't really married and you essentiallylied to society to get the license. That's about as stupid a statement I've ever read here. I "lied" to society... duh... like where does it say you *must* have children when you get married? How exactly does the government "presume" we are having children?

It says "marriage" right on the license. That's what it has always
meant. You don't have children, you don't really have a marriage, and
there is no reason for the government (society) so recognize your
incomplete union.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

JWB

03-12-2004, 04:13 PM

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40524F2E.1090605@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40523599.90407@hotmail.com...It's not about "benefits." I'm sure you must have considered the costof children to your income, life style, etc., when you decided not towant kids.The government presumes that you are planning on children. If you arerefusing children then you aren't really married and you essentiallylied to society to get the license. That's about as stupid a statement I've ever read here. I "lied" to society... duh... like where does it say you *must* have children when
you get married? How exactly does the government "presume" we are having children? It says "marriage" right on the license. That's what it has always meant. You don't have children, you don't really have a marriage, and there is no reason for the government (society) so recognize your incomplete union.

But wait - where are you getting that marriage must include children? I
mean, you say "that's what it has always meant", but you're gonna have to
show some official citation if you want it to have any validity. Otherwise,
it's just your opinion that marriage = must have children, and therefore,
meaningless.

Ellie

03-12-2004, 04:25 PM

JWB wrote:
The government presumes that you are planning on children. If you are refusing children then you aren't really married and you essentially lied to society to get the license. That's about as stupid a statement I've ever read here. I "lied" to society... duh... like where does it say you *must* have children when you get married?

Of course it's ridiculous to say married couples *must* have children,
but...
How exactly does the government "presume" we are having children?

Here is how : "presume" is not the same as "demand"! The reason
society sets out to help and support married couples is because
it presumes they will have children. In other words if it was
not for the presumption of childrearing, society couldn't care less
that two people love each other and want to live together! This,
in no way means that every married couple WILL have children,
and society doesn't expect that either. But the support given
marriage is because the majority will -- and in the past, this was
enforced by making childbearing outside of marriage quite undesirable,
to say the least! So those who wanted to have children were almost
forced to get married (this is still true for much of the world).

See my example of students and subsidies. Rich students who
take advantage of these benefits aren't cheating society or lying
to it. Society KNOWS there are people who don't need the support,
but deems the benefits of supporting ALL students far exceeding
the cost of the minority who don't need it.