Is there anyone who's both pro-life and pro-LGBT rights?

Post Reply New Topic

^^You must be using an alternate definition of "pro-life".
We have been using the standard "opposed to the legality of abortion" definition.

Oh. You're right.
I was using the "concerned for the impact of abortion vs. forced pregnancy on the actual lives involved" definition.

The balance you speak of, is culturally and traditional based, and given that, it means that such ideal of "balance" can be subjected to change and to be reformed to any idea of balance that would differ from the previous one in some issues. Given that people discredit tradition as something that important or something to consider reasonable to stand untouched. With the advent of feminism, this cultural balance has been challenged, as well as some "balances" held in the past such as interracial marriages. Not only that, but the issue of defending this position, is recognizing that is something that is has to be generalized for the convenience of a traditional balance, as you must know that, not all men are stronger (as you suggested that men naturally stronger) and not all women are the "weaker sex", and those differences don't come only from nature, but the behaviours learned from a culture and tradition take part on it ). People who are liberal thinking, generally think that any justification from tradition is bunk.


I don't know about civil unions really, so I ask, civil unions have equal legal benefits as marriages do? if not, then we have a problem.

If the issue is that gay couples can't get legal benefits equally as heterosexual couples get, in any way whatsoever (resulting in the privilige granted to heterosexual couples only) which happens to be through marriage for heterosexual couples, then it's reasonable to conclude that it's a civil rights issue.

me!

Wow. You are just soo wrong. I was taken from my father by a feminist social project that assumed that children were always better off with their mothers, regardless of how often their step-fathers rough them up. There is just no way in hell I would take a child away from the family they chose. I have a problem with enforcing the child to live where they do not want to or do not feel safe.



Just ask the kid where they want to live and keep both sides out of it.



Mine is not an argument from tradition. Rather one from an optimum. No two female parents can provide the same balance as that of a woman and a man.



I have no issue with civil unions, I do have an issue with providing access to IVF and adoption. It has already closed down too many providers who would be sued if they did not give children to same-sex couples. I have no issue with a same sex couple taking care of children from previous same sex relationships. Providing access to IVF etc, would take away a child's natural right to have a parent of both genders and I see no good reason to think this right should mean less than those of the child's potential parents. Children have rights but to parents they are not a right; they are a blessing.

they are the one group of people you can be almost sure to actually want the child and not the support

1. K my dad was a good person but an alcholic and not the best example and you don't see me going out having irresponsible sex so apparently that is not nessisary. Also people should not try to perfectly fit into some limited gender role....if they don't fit.

2. Not all men are stronger than all women, just like not all women are more emotional then all men...there are no absolutes really, but even so if the majority of males are physically stronger than the majority of females how does that indicate males have to follow some strict code of being male?

3. And what is so privliged about marrige? its two people bonding together to spend their lives together.

Well crap I guess straight people who do not plan on having kids should not be allowd to get married, either then.

it still astounds me that anyone think they can use faith to dictate what has largely evolved into a social contract,

You cite that as if it was an article of faith. But you have nothing other than intuitive belief on which to found that claim.

There is no emprical evidence to demonstrate that children raised by a same sex couple are at any disadvantage to their peers raised by opposite sex couples. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that children raised by a single parent are disadvantaged to their peers raised by two parents--but the sex of those parents is irrelevant to the advantage enjoyed by children with two parents.



I certainly agree with you that the rights of the child are the only rights in question. I go so far as to say that parents have no rights over their children, and that family law rights operate in only one direction, enforced by the child on each of the child's parents.

But I do not see that children have a natural right to a parent of each sex. Natural rights are those rights that exist independently of a system of law, but it is abundantly clear that most of the rights that crystallize in a child's possession are not natural rights, but artificial ones. Furthermore, such rights that do exist are limited--again by their artificial nature. For example, a child's right to parenting is limited to the existence of those parents--should one parent die, the child has no right to arbitrarily impose its rights onto a third party. A child born to a married, opposite-sex couple is presumed (an artifical action of law, not an operation of natural law) to be the child of the male spouse. The child's legal rights over this person are not natural, they are imposed by presumption of law.

We have acknowledged a parens patriae jurisdiction that enables the state to create law that gives effect to a complex of rights for all children within a jurisdiction. That law is, however, inherently artificial, and therefore it may be applied mutatis mutandis. Nothing in the legal capacity to adopt of same-sex couples, or access to reproductive technology diminishes the inherent rights that crystalize upon the creation of parent-child relationships.

I have no objection to any person's decision not to parent unless they are in an opposite sex relationship. But I take strong exception to people who seek to oppose the decision of other people to establish parent-child relationships without an evidence based argument to support it. Instead of getting in the way of same-sex couples who are able to provide for all of their children's best interests, wouldn't your effort be better spent helping children who are left in abusive circumstances?

I see nothing wrong with homosexual couples adopting kids.

This is pretty much, totally incorrect. There have been several studies put forward in relation to Lesbian Parenting etc. These studies are methodologically flawed because they do not interact with the HUGE amount of literature conducted over the previous decades that shows children do best in families with two biological parents. The lobby studies simply ignore this. From Child Trends (a nonpartisan organization)

If however you want a broad study, by more than a dozen authors, with a review of the present literature:
W. Bradford Wilcox, et al., Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences, (New York: Institute for American Values, 2005).

“An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage . . . Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development."



The reasoning here is slightly weird. Your argument seems to be; children have rights, most of those rights are artificial therefor they have no natural right to a parent from each sex. Your conclusion simply does not follow from what you are saying. Children born in the natural world are born with two biological parents; a male and a female; denying them this requires intervention. It meets the definition of a natural right.




Nature takes away our right to life all the time, it simply does not follow that because this can happen that we therefor do not have that right to begin with. Further, the death of a biological parent does not remove the fact that the child has a biological parent, what has change is that the parent has deceased.




I think you are a bit confused here; a child has those rights at the point it begins to exist. It does not follow that because somone can violate that right, that therefor it did not exist in the first place.



Thats the point, it takes an artificial intrusion into the natural state in order to change the situation. The same is true of adoption, where the state creates a relationship akin to the natural one by fiat where one did not exist before.

says nothing about sex and only argues against adoption.

also nature is changed by humanity today, children can be born under a multitude of circumstance today.

Nonsense, all of the findings of the Wilcox et al article related to the traditional conception of marriage.

Or some more works on the subject:
'Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree' A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH, S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, Journal Of Law & Family Studies, University Of Utah, VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2

Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005)

Also, children in same sex relationships are far more likely to be exposed to domestic violence:

Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.



The right to freedom of speech can be changed by people clubbing the speaker. The fact that it requires an artificial act to change the circumstances does nothing to take away the right's natural status.

gwat yong lie, heavy criticism of the actual study, done in 1985 and made large assumptions for their data.

leornard sax, in large seen as faulty science, he used small statistical differences and general perception to formulate sweeping generalizations of the sexes.

A. dean byrd, a member of teh LDS church and most look at his science as being biased through that lens.

i dont know of the last two.

the law of faulty human perception makes it more likely they were seeing what they wanted to see, to really think that the fact they have another sexual preference makes them violent and unsuitable parents is a thought of the past.

please define what makes something a natural status and the implications of such.

also if the first study you posted is to be believed then adoption is not a preferable option to either same sex or heterosexual marriage.

I understood your history when I made the post. Why do you espouse views that ultimately result, as testified by the document that I have referenced above, in the same consequences? I don't think that I am wrong at all. You are espousing a view that would result in perfectly good same-sex adoptive parents being turned away in favor of opposite-sex parents who just might turn out to be abusers. Rather than taking into account the individual fitness of two parents, you would use a simple-minded litmus test to make the determination, just like some small-minded judge once did at your expense. And what is really messed-up is that you are saying we should apply this litmus test in spite of mountains of evidence that it doesn't work worth crap. It's useless, but you would use it to determine a child's fate. I think that's pretty arrogant and crappy.

Nooooo, you said that it was in the best interests of a child to have both a mother and a father. You said that, rather than accounting for the individual parenting ability of all parties involved or simply asking the kid where he or she would rather be, a child should have care-givers of both sexes. Is it necessary for me to quote you in order to prove that I'm not misrepresenting your views?

And you and others keep saying this in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 80,00.html

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... usted-kids

Even if the evidence right in front of you is that lesbian moms tend to do a better job? It takes a real a**hole to sacrifice a child's well-being to satisfy an old, festering, stupid hatred for leftist organizations in general that wasn't even borne of any rational thinking.

You have been an idiot to blame the whole political left for your own problems. I mean, especially considering how backward-looking and traditionalist it is to assume that women and women only are capable of being nurturers, nevermind that "feminist" organizations use this conventional-minded bullcrap where it suits their purposes. Don't you realize, you ass, that it is a very backward-looking mindset that made a judge think that your mother would be a better nurturer for you than your father? The judge made the decision that caused you so much misery because he was willing to reject the evidence right in front of him in the name of conventional wisdom.

And here you are applying the same never-proven and repeatedly disproven conventional wisdom. You have taken the assumption, "Mommy is the nurturer, and Daddy is the role-model," and you have run with it. You are going by the same thinking that caused a judge to think that your abusive, miserable excuse of a mother would take better care of you than your father. He was running with the assumption that all your father was good for was taking you to baseball games and teaching you how to shave. You are committing the same sins you suffered under, and it was someone's willingness to think unconventionally long enough to see reality that saved you. I see you as rather ungrateful and petty.

If any test is applied in deciding the order in which adoptive children are given to would-be parents, it shouldn't be the gender or sexuality of the parents in question. No matter how eccentric two care-givers are on their own time, what ultimately decides the fate of a child is his or her parents' devotion to doing right by their child, even if it means making sacrifices. There is no substitute for it.

And I am growing increasingly annoyed by the miserable, pretentious pseudo-science where people claim that there is some magic formula of masculine and feminine vibrations (or whatever crappy, stupid belief) that is somehow a substitute for simple, pure devotion and sacrifice. The evidence in front of you says the same thing that I am saying. You can reach out and touch it. Being a good mom or dad is really that simple, and you need nothing else in the world. If you have the simple virtue of being absolutely determined for your baby to grow up to be the most special creature in the world, you cannot fail. Anything else is pseudo-science fit only for the smallest of minds.

91, you were a victim of the same small-mindedness you have put on display here, not feminism. I think that you have also fallen victim of the siren song of the political right, which would lead you to believe that all leftist organizations are intent only on "eroding traditional values." Rather than seeing feminist organizations as being out for their own self-interests, you have taken the fact that they sometimes come into opposition with "traditional values" to mean that opposition to tradition is their primary focus. It isn't. Their primary focus is exactly what they say it is, and they use tradition and conventionalism when and where it suits them, often in a manner that is quite mercenary (one of the failings of Womankind).