Defending the Scout Oath

[aquaticeagle]

"I think what is being referred to is the inability of homosexual couples to procreate within their relationship."

 

Just because sex between two homosexual people can't produce a child doesn't mean that the couple cannot procreate. Homosexual couples can have children through implantation or artificial insemination. They can also adopt which is something that more people should be doing anyway.

[OldGreyEagle]

I have an Aunt and Uncle that are well into their 70's, never had children, I hope no one would consider their Marriage a failure because they didn't propagate.

 

On defending the Scout Oath, does it need defending? Perhaps what needs to occur is a defense by those who interpret the Scout Oath? Lets see, for example, The US Constitution, that may be a good example. Can we talk about what it means? Are all aspects of the Constitution adherred to at the same level of committment? Is what the Constitution meant in the late 1700's the same as it means today and 200 years from now, God willing, what will it mean then? Maybe its not the Oath that needs examination, rather the process that renders a good deal of the BSA Volunteer base impotent in matters regarding policy and program direction. Its the Chartering Organizations that drive the BSA yet how many times do we hear about non-existent relationships between the CO and the unit. Perhaps if those who deliver the program had a bigger voice in the direction of the program things would be better, louder at the very least

[Eagledad]

>>How so? Because the kids will grow up outside of a box and will learn that the world is not Pleasantville? I can pretty much guarantee you that alcoholic or drug-abusing parents and parents who die at an early age from lung cancer have a much greater impact on a childhood than a child being raised by two women or two men.

[DanKroh]

"There is plenty of evidence that shows that children raised in none mom and dad environments are at a higher risk of teen sex, teen pregnancy, drugs, alcoholism, and social disorders."

 

Then it won't be hard to cite some evidence that shows this for two-parent families where both parents are the same-sex, from credible, non-biased sources, as aquaticeagle has asked, twice now.

[DanKroh]

"I know there are lots of other situations beside gay families where kids are raise without both a mom and dad. But that doesnt mean its right. It is still harmful to the family structure."

 

What you see here, aquaticeagle, is the intellectual equivalent of a shell game. Yes, studies show that children raised in *single* parent households do not do as well as in two-parent heterosexual households, so that *must* mean that children in two-parent same-sex households are equivalent to those in single-parent households. Except it actually doesn't, and they aren't. And even though the number of studies actually comparing apples to apples (two-parent heterosexual to two-parent homosexual households) are still fairly small, they are all pretty conclusive in saying that kids do just as well in both (and kids in households with two moms may actually *gasp* do better than those in a mom-and-dad situation).

[Eagledad]

>>Then it won't be hard to cite some evidence that shows this for two-parent families where both parents are the same-sex, from credible, non-biased sources, as aquaticeagle has asked, twice now

[DanKroh]

By the way, Barry, you know that I've been trained as a scientist and have actually performed psychological research, so I think I'm quite capable to judging the credibility of research methods from published reports, and whether those methods include bias.

 

It's too bad you work with so many people you have so little respect for, it must make for an unhappy work environment.

[Eagledad]

No games or tricks here Dan, thats not my style. Apparently you feel the need to belittle folks whom you dont agree to discredit them. You know you can have discussions without being confrontational. For example, if your data is so good, why would confrontation be necessary? I guess we need a psychologist to explain that.

 

Thats OK Dan, you go ahead and attack away, but send me your data on the small conclusive studies so I can research just how non-biased they are. But get ready, if you really know anything about this kind of research, then you also know that your conclusive conclusion is at a lot more risk than I am.

 

Barry

 

[DanKroh]

"No games or tricks here Dan, thats not my style. Apparently you feel the need to belittle folks whom you dont agree to discredit them. You know you can have discussions without being confrontational. For example, if your data is so good, why would confrontation be necessary? I guess we need a psychologist to explain that."

 

Well, then explain why you tried to compare information from studies done on single-parent households to two-parent same-sex households to "prove" your point. Sorry, but I call it like it is. It's a shell game tactic very commonly used by anti-gay writers.

 

No, being confrontational would be telling me I can't possibly be any good at judging credibility of people actually doing research in my own field because I'm not an engineer. Or saying over and over again about how little respect you have for psychologists.

 

"Thats OK Dan, you go ahead and attack away, but send me your data on the small conclusive studies so I can research just how non-biased they are. But get ready, if you really know anything about this kind of research, then you also know that your conclusive conclusion is at a lot more risk than I am."

 

Well, just as aquaticeagle can do his own research, so can you. Google is your friend. And excuse me, Barry, but you seem to be the one who goes into attack mode every time we get into discussions about research. I may attack the methods of the research in question, but you seem to take great glee in ad hominem attacks on me personally and my profession in general.

 

That's definitely your game, not mine.

[aquaticeagle]

"So, let him do the research to prove me wrong if it so important to the discussion. He started it without such research, he can do the work. There is plenty of information out there that supports what I wrote. And really to me, its also just logical." - Eagledad

 

No buddy, you got it backwards. You made the claim so the burden of proof is yours, not mine. Anyone in science that makes a claim has the responsibility to back it up, not the audience. Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Otherwise you just look foolish.

[DanKroh]

Aquaticeagle, if you want to read a good paper on the ways that anti-gay writers manipulate statistics and use biased research to support their agenda, take a look at this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf

 

It is a parody of anti-gay tracts, but the part to examine is the references at the end, where the author comments on how he used bad "research" to support his thesis, in exactly the same way that people like Paul Cameron do.

[Hal_Crawford]

Dan:

Fascinating article.

Hal

[Horizon]

Though 5 years old, this article from Slate does a good job of describing the challenges of honestly evaluating the impact of gay parenting:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

 

If you wish to review the science, APA has a summary of the research on the impact of gay parenting on children here:

 

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html

 

"Summary

 

Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends-both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research."

[evmori]

Just because sex between two homosexual people can't produce a child doesn't mean that the couple cannot procreate. Homosexual couples can have children through implantation or artificial insemination. They can also adopt which is something that more people should be doing anyway.

 

Shoulda been more specific. Homosexual couples can't procreate without outside help where traditional couples can. And yeah I know not all traditional couples can & need outside help but not 100% of the time.

[DanKroh]

Nice articles Horizon.

 

I mentioned the APA stance on homosexuality once, but gave up after I was told that the APA is filled with gays and lesbians who are part of the great gay conspiracy to legitimize their lifestyle. I must have missed that part of the membership packet when I joined. Maybe it was in the fine print.