Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

My point addresses neither. Simply, do you believe that a child receive the same or more benefits from two good same sex parents (regardless of sexuality) or from one good single parent (regardless of sexuality) as opposed to two good opposite sex parents (regardless of sexuality)?

Maybe you don't realize that sham marriages are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I didn't say good couples, but good homosexual couples are better than good heterosexual couples. It relates, because you were implying a counter to gbaji "reproduction argument", saying that the ability to reproduce isn't as important as the ability to raise a child. So I countered to say if you think good homosexuals raising children is just as effective as good heterosexuals raising children.



Nice try, but no. Those studies are taking in consideration of all heterosexual parenting to include the good, the bad and the ugly (the vast majority of all parenting) versus the few homosexual parenting. Also, that article was focused more on combating the belief that if a child is raised by homosexual parents, the child will not be emotionally and or psychological stable. This is combating the nonsensical belief that any child raised by a heterosexual is inherently better than a homosexual because no heterosexual parents are bad and no homosexual parents are good.

My point addresses neither. Simply, do you believe that a child receive the same or more benefits from two good same sex parents (regardless of sexuality) or from one good single parent (regardless of sexuality) as opposed to two good opposite sex parents (regardless of sexuality)?

You can believe what you want, but the answer is no. Men and women are different and you can't substitute one for the other when it comes to raising a child. That doesn't mean that the child will grow up with deficiencies in other combinations, but you also can't argue that it is an advantage either in an ideal situation, because it's not.

You're half correct. They should be two different questions, but not the ones you listed.

*Do you believe good same sex parents (regardless of sexuality) provide the same or more benefits as a good single parent (regardless of sexuality)

*Do you believe good same sex parents (regardless of sexuality) provide the same or more benefits as good opposite sex parents (regardless of sexuality)?


Slightly different.

You show where I denied the possibility of the aforementioned occurring?

You can believe what you want, but the answer is no. Men and women are different and you can't substitute one for the other when it comes to raising a child. That doesn't mean that the child will grow up with deficiencies in other combinations, but you also can't argue that it is an advantage either in an ideal situation, because it's not.

I agreed that the role model doesn't have to be a parent or live at home, but you can't deny the benefits of the role model being a parent that lives at home. That is my point, there are advantages in different scenarios. You can't possibly believe that all scenarios are the same. They all have the potential of successfully raising a child, but the road there is different.

Oh God! Not this again...

Because no one has ever accidentally artificially inseminated themselves. Also, the "couple" didn't produce the child. One person did. The other person was a bystander to the process.

I didn't say good couples, but good homosexual couples are better than good heterosexual couples. It relates, because you were implying a counter to gbaji "reproduction argument", saying that the ability to reproduce isn't as important as the ability to raise a child. So I countered to say if you think good homosexuals raising children is just as effective as good heterosexuals raising children.