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

Post Reply New Topic

Access to IVF? Since when does the U.S. government have any power over who gets IVF and who doesn't?
When they provide universal healthcare (haha like that will happen) then they can choose.

One of the things a conservative must be careful of when discussing these issues with lefties is language. Lefties are very sensitive with regards to language. Whats interesting is that if I denied natural rights in relation to a subject you care about I would be the most evil person on the boards but when visagrunt makes a statement along the exact same lines, no one bats an eyelid. Please re-read your post, it is insensitive, insulting and just plain rude, throughout.

Secondly, I am applying a standard, a preference for an optimum. Decrying the unfairness of any standrard, which your are is just silly. You then ignore the points I have made in previous posts(a common tactic, which we will return to), for example, that same sex homes have a greater incidence of domestic violence. You ignore the evidence, then decry the lack of it, which is disingenuous to say the least.



Please do check my previous statements, you might find the part where I said I have no problem with same sex couples taking care of children from a previous marriage.



The issue I have with these findings is that 30 years of sociology has told us that most of the metrics that were found in this study relate more to socio-economic factors than those of parental environment. The study just ignores this. Please see the meta-study I cited on the last page for a reference. One of the interesting things about these studies is that they almost never mention the socio-economic status comparisons of the reference groups. Saying children from same-sex relationships look similar to those of some heterosexual relationships does not really tell us anything objectively useful. The best of these studies were reviewed by the American Academy of Pediatrics; the conclusion of AAP was; “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” Granted the AAP is a pretty good body, but none of the studies it referenced discussed what the relationship of the children's parents were at the time of the study. If these studies want to tell us anything useful, then they need to provide us with more information and the contextualize it within the present literature. On both counts, the literature of these studies fail miserably. So the statement, whilst appearing strong, is an intellectual paper tiger and so is not really worthy of the faith the apologists of same-sex parenthood think it is.

However, as a general rule, children raised in step-families, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents do not do as well as those with biological parents. IVF children born to lesbian mothers, are stripped of the natural right to both of their biological parents and I see no good reason to think that equality of parenthood overrides this right. Especially, considering my own view that children are a blessing not a right.



Imagine if I said this, substituting the words that target me, with ones that target you... imagine the fallout... it would rain self-righteous comments.



I don't blame the political left for my problems. I think they made them worse but they don't get the blame.



Lol. I am a member of the ALP. Not exactly a bastion of right wing conservatism.

Really writing you own history of me aren't you? I joined a left-wing party because I believe the social support I received when dad and I were dirt poor was necessary. I support rights for same-sex couples, but not marriage, because marriage is privileged and not IVF because children have natural rights to biological parents of opposite sex. The fact you think I am some raving right wing lunatic, despite the fact my views are the mainstream in most places, just shows how far off the mark you are.

I don't mind you calling me "lefty" if you don't mind being called "darkie."

And thoroughly true.

It doesn't have anything to do with "fairness," and it has everything to do with the fact that you are a hypocrite. Not only that, but you are continuing to state the same disproven views in the face of mounting evidence against them, which I consider to be dishonest.

You brought up fairness, darkie, not me. It is your morality that I decry.

But you don't advocate it, right? So, if a child were being dragged screaming away from a lesbian couple, one of which was its mother, you would just say, "Oh, I wouldn't mind terribly if you just left the kid where he was," but you wouldn't actually want to intervene on behalf of the child. Am I reading you correctly?

This is a rather dubious and disingenuous criticism of my own references, not a defense for your own views.

There is no such "natural right," darkie. The only sense in which children of same-sex parents are deprived is having to deal with people like you. You...you personally...are their primary source of adversity, not their parents. They would be better off if you didn't exist. Your life has no worth at all for a child who has same-sex parents. You are the bane of their existence. You ARE the problem. You are a walking social ill. Like war and famine, you destroy or hurt everything you touch. You are poison.

Do you realize how your rhetoric might affect kids who actually were born of IVF? Don't you realize that YOUR rhetoric could be instilling in them a sense of inadequacy that otherwise would not have existed? You would do society a service if you were to shut up about your views on this subject. They can only hurt and destroy.

Bull. You have fixated on the political left, particularly "feminists," as the cause of your problems, you fool. Has it not occurred to you that the LGBT and feminist movements haven't even always agreed with each other? There have been feminist intellectuals who have actively and systematically persecuted members of the LGBT community. I don't even like the majority of feminist organizations because I find them to be revoltingly bigoted, or else they seem to think that "testosterone has some interesting effects on the development of the human amygdala" constitutes the height of misogyny.

No, I just don't think you have been honest with us or yourself. There is no evidence that the presence of one sex or the other has any effect on childhood development, yet you still make these claims.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 03 Aug 2011, 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah you're one to talk about others being dishonest . All you've done is source a bunch of books rather than provide more accessible sources to support this assertion of yours. Why the hell would it be any different when abuse is about control?
http://www.lambda.org/DV_background.htm

Nice goal post shifting. It doesn't matter if the homosexual couple are rich or poor since it is a biological issue rather than a socioeconomic one. Whether or not gay marriage is harmful to a child's sexual orientation and/or identity has jack s**t to do with socioeconomic status. Oh yeah and I noticed you didn't say anything about the statistics about domestic violence in same sex couples failing to make socioeconomic distinctions.

False equivalency.

Natural rights my ass. Is a tiger gonna jump out of the jungles and prey on homosexual couples to protect the kid's "natural right" to a mother and a father? There are no instincts ingrained by thousands of years of evolution that predisposes us to nuclear families since it is actually a social construction that became popular as recent as the early 20th century. There are homosexual animals, so arguments based on the notion of homosexuality being unnatural are BS.

not to mention all those come from either anti gay activists (in that they are featured talking against it in several different ways)
or members of groups with strong views on the issue.
with low availability it is hard to make ones own decision about it but from their respective histories i would have to disregard said surveys untill i can read them myself.

91, just admit that your "nuclear family" ideology is right up there with astrology and phrenology. It is pseudo-science, and it always has been. You cannot support it. It is a failure.

I would be thrilled to have same-sex partnerships, especially those involving children, to receive in-depth study. I would find it exciting to read some actual valid documentation on the subject. Nothing could make me happier.

But it is evil...I do not exaggerate: it is evil that people like you, 91, are spreading rhetoric against same-sex parents in the face of mounting evidence that you are dead wrong. I honestly see it as a disgrace.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 03 Aug 2011, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed. Your views (91, not Ace) are bigoted, plain and simple. You're reaching far to find anything to support your own ideals, but I'm sure for every study you can find, there are 5 that say otherwise. I mean, one of your references was from 1985. Now I don't know what it was like in Australia at that time, but around here the atmosphere was pretty hostile against gay people. Discrimination was not only allowed legally, but it was encouraged. Back then, most people blamed the AIDS epidemic on homosexual men. Acceptance of homosexuality in modern culture is a pretty new thing. Ellen DeGeneres waited until 1997 to come out, and she still got a lot of grief over it.

But back to gay parenting, you're seeing everything through your own negative, narrow lens. You mentioned earlier about the correlation between absent fathers and promiscuity in girls. I've noticed the same trend myself and think it's a valid concern. However, you assumed gay parents = 2 moms and no dads. What about 2 dads and no moms? Isn't it possible that girl could be better served by having 2 loving dads (assuming the male part is important here, which it may not even be)? What if a baby born through IVF to 2 gay parents turns out to be gay themselves? Wouldn't that child benefit greatly from having parents who actually understood what their life experiences are like? Or if that child turns out straight, wouldn't they benefit from having a wider world view?

And why is marriage privileged? Why is it OK to deny this so-called privilege to any group? And why do you think you are entitled to declare who may or may not be entitled to said privilege?

And the issue for me is not that it's inequality, which would be tolerable, but the fact that this bigotry is based on lies. I cannot abide a bigot who bases his bigotry on the deliberate misrepresentation of fact.

Clearly not. I have lobbied my state government on this matter.



Then there is an irreconcilable disagreement; yours however is with reality.

Please read the work of Prof. Margaret Sommerville:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op ... 6099613917



Children born to same-sex parents through IVF have already had their rights infinged by an adult-orientated reproduction policy... your coming a bit late to the children have rights party.



I have checked that every study I have referenced is available online. Sorry, I prefer not to link to blogs, unless they are well refernced.



I never trust a source that does not give me its sources. I provided two peer-reviewed sources to substantiate my claims. If I cited a webpage from a something like 'protect the family.org' you would trow a tantrum; you however think it is perfectly fine to throw up lambda.org and no way to check their claims.



Not really, things like academic and career success and to some extent self-worth/esteem correlate better with socio-economic factors than with the construct of the family unit (though there certainly is overlap; 'Socio‐economic Status and Academic
Achievement Trajectories from Childhood toAdolescence' http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/Fu ... roEtAl.pdf). When one examines who was being studied in studies like the NLLFS study it becomes clear why the results are what they are (http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/7389/).

For example;
'Compared with a group of control adolescents born to heterosexual parents with similar educational and financial backgrounds, the children of lesbian couples scored better on academic and social tests and lower on measures of rule-breaking and aggression.'

Those things being touted as advantages, are more clearly understood in light of the fact that;

“at least 67 per cent of the mothers in the [study] had at least a college education compared to approximately 28 per cent of women of similar age in US Census data”



From Sara McLanahan of Princeton University,

'If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal.', Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 38)

--------------------

It seems that your rampage for pluralism stops dead when I say something you do not agree with.

Since when do "ideal families" (nuclear or otherwise) exist outside of movies and tv shows? I've never met any.

Real families come in a shapes and sizes. To say that any that do not fit into the narrow definition of a biologically-related nuclear family are somehow worth less than those that are different (single parents, same sex couples, adoptive parents, grandparents and grandchildren, older siblings raising younger siblings, etc) is ridiculous.

I felt that way too, being pro-life and pro-gay. No where in any of the Gospels just Jesus condemn homosexuality, so why should I? Not to mention, I, like many LGBT people, have been picked on and ostracized my entire life for being different, me for being an Aspie. The bullies used to call me all sorts of homophobic things, even though I'm not gay, because to jerks like them, I might of well have been because people like them think being gay doesn't make you a man, only having sex with a bunch of girls and treating them badly does. So, suffice to say, I don't allow other people to bash gays because I know how much it hurts to be considered an inferior being. As for pro-life, I get from my faith, being a strong Catholic. My faith is a very big part of my life. Also, why would any Aspie, or any LGBT person want to support abortion anyway? If pre-natal testing discovers genetic traits pre-disposing a fetus to being LGBT or having AS, the likelihood of such a fetus being aborted increases dramatically because people don't want 'weirdos' like us. Don't believe me? Go look it up. Anyway, I understand how you feel; that's yet another reason why I'm non-partisan.

Dunno how many people have answered this thread, didn't read the arguments, but... *raises hand* pro-life Christian lesbian, right here. To me this is all perfectly logical, I've never been internally conflicted about myself or my beliefs - though everyone else thinks I ought to be. People often ridicule you when you don't fit with their "sets" of stereotypes. Hang in there.