RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Gay Parents: Bad for Kids?

This is generally true of products of "progressive parenting". People who are more "open-minded" tend to have less caution for breaking laws--especially ones of social relevance. This isn't to say that, in principle, breaking certain laws is a bad thing, but if the goal is to break laws for a hedonistic thrill or to show a token defiance of authority, then you're a moron.

I just watched a lecture by Milton Friedman given in 1990 on dialectics where he explains the difference between him and Ayn Rand. Essentially, he believes that principle understandings of natural processes are formed through an observation of man's habits and an accumulation of knowledge. While Ayn Rand certainly wasn't remiss in using history to give her point of view more legitimacy, the crux of her belief system didn't rely on facts or thorough analyses of social/economical incidents beyond the objective observation that A is A, the sky is blue, water's wet, and man is selfish. And therefore, any policy we create with regards to those things must be consonant to their natures, regardless of history, to be successful.

While I have love for both of them, and I must admit that Friedman's preoccupation with history and scholarship is what has assigned him so much credibility in his life, I tend to lean in Rand's direction. For one thing, history has a way of churning out fringe incidents that go against the grain of common sense for whatever reasons that occurred at the time. It's all well and fine if you can explain why these fringe events happened, but you're not always going to have the facts. Friedman, for instance, used half a dozen very successful laissez faire based cultures as a means of arguing for open and unregulated societies. An apparently stymieing factor to his argument though was Korea, which was booming even though it had a lot of tariffs and regulations. He may or may not have addressed it later on, but the point being he didn't have knowledge of the rudiments of Korea's foreign trade system within his grasp at the time, and so it undermined his point.

The more profound reason for why I would advocate the Rand approach however, is how intuitive it is according to the underlying motivation of all men and the nature of objects both grown and artificial. In this instance, the most relevant observation to make about a homosexual couple is simply that they're doing it wrong--whatever your interpretation of "it" might be. And this example of wrongness is going to rub off on a child regardless of the amount of comfort, nurturing, and education he or she received throughout life being raised by a same-sex couple. No matter how socially balanced they are, they're still going to grow up to understand the phrase, "a plug is designed to go into a socket," as just a polite suggestion as opposed to a stone cold fact.

Now consider for a moment that their parents or, in this case, guardians are their entire lives until they're adults, and they're teaching them by example that living counter to the nature of your own body--or anything for that matter--is perfectly acceptable. The underlying principle of what they're being taught is that, regardless of the designated function of an object, it can be properly implemented in any fashion he or she chooses. By that logic, all natural functions, be they ordained by man or otherwise, are either obsolete or simply irrelevant. When taking that into account, a socially balanced development for children is the least of my worries considering that the underlying philosophy that they've taken away is inherently self-destructive to any culture.

As far as homosexuality in particular is concerned, this whole issue makes me recall when Jim got pissed off at me once for pointing out that a universal preference for same-sex couplings would doom mankind. The best response he could offer was that such a proposition "smacks of science fiction". He was one of those sad but interesting creatures that seemed prepared to admit that there was something wrong with what he was doing but reasoned that he was apart of such a small ratio that it didn't matter if a homosexual portion of society existed or not. But his obstinacy to a dialectic position kind of proved his undoing on the subject: if you acknowledge that homosexuality would be destructive if practiced on a macro scale, then you're acknowledging that it's inherently harmful on a micro scale. Any economics curriculum will acknowledge that the latter is what trends the former. And if a philosophy is going to be tenable on a grand scale, then what's good for all must first be good for the one since the individual is what preserves the integrity of the philosophy; it's impossible for the group as a whole to do such a thing.

So in the end, a preoccupation with study--especially in this area--is pointless, and only serves to feed the egos of scholars. This isn't to say that Friedman's approach doesn't advocate common sense by virtue of observing history, but Rand's approach, I find, is definitely more effective as it does not require history as a prerequisite for its implementation. So while the negative results of the study are hardly surprising, they're entirely irrelevant to the more apparent fundamental breakdown at the root of their cause.



I don't know about that. Again, I wouldn't be surprised, but it's a more difficult point to make. I see evidence for it insofar as the homosexual community tends to tokenly fight sexual conventions in general and constantly shift the goal post to whatever suits their whim. Their dubious campaign slogan of "two consenting adults" obviously sounds good, but it's marvelously tangent from the point of "one man, one woman". Why stop at two? Why consenting? Why adults? Why human?

Unlike the traditional model for the institution of marriage, their parameters for the ritual fail to establish a social objective. Generally, and overwhelmingly, one man and one woman will always trend growth, families, and population stability. A same-sex coupling will not trend any of those things without a third party--which defeats the purpose entirely. As such, the social objective of a homosexual coupling could not possibly be families. The only other reason is relationships, but that has nothing to do with the state or the institution of marriage. One could argue that more cohesive and loving relationships are good for society in general, but it's not a government responsibility to reinforce a relationship.

So by all accounts, there really is no reason to limit the proposition to "two consenting adults". And as the mentality of that slogan is reinforced in our society, people will begin to understand how squishy and meaningless it is, and they will simply move on to other protocols for marriage and relationships. Could be polygamy, could be pedophilia, could be bestiality. With a phrase so lacking in integrity on a political or philosophical basis, the sky's the limit.