David,

You misunderstand what prejudice means. A prejudice is a predisposition, which prevents objective deliberation about something. You are a person of religion and that is influencing your thoughts. I am an Atheist and I do not have that influence. Atheism doesn’t influence me other than to look for prejudice and point it out.

The main opposition to same-sex marriage etc is from religion i.e. from a predisposition. You would accept that a Muslim might be predisposed to wear a Burka whereas an Atheist (And your religion) would not be so inclined. Atheists don’t stop at one religion as do you.

This is not a ‘numbers’ game, although it could come down to that. That is quite disgusting in istself. We are talking about basic human rights that are not afforded people of same-sex orientation.

Having people as second class citizens makes them vulnerable to abuse. The evidence shows this is happening now. It is a seldom occasion for religious people to show concern about this. It is always the Simpsonian cry of, “Why wont someone think of the children!”

It wouldn’t be too far fetched to say that the American College of Paediatricians is comprised in the main of people with a conservative religious background. Nothing strange in that, after all, it is the USA.

You think they would be proud of that fact instead of making it difficult to find out thus distorting their real reasons for objections to homosexuality.

David

Well spotted.

If you read their manifesto the American College of Paediatricians are a Christian fundamentalist society, who allow their religious beliefs to prejudice their professional judgement.

A mother and a father do matter in the relationship, but they are not the only factors or even the most important, as the results from children raised in same sex relationships have shown.

Far more important is the stability of the home and relationship, and the support given to the children. This is lacking in many more heterosexual relationships than same sex families.

>> "a mother really does matter in a baby's life, and
>> 'Woulf' and David disagree."

Please don't put words into my mouth, David. I've disputed your article on two grounds:

1. As a covenant between two adults, marriage takes place independently of any existing or subsequent children. Unlike a driver's licence which is legally required before driving, marriage is not of itself prescriptive of subsequent behaviour or child-bearing (though the specific commitments made by the parties in the marriage ceremony might be). Children are irrelevant to the issue of whether adults should be allowed to marry.

2. Arguing that studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples have the same or better outcomes as those raised by opposite-sex couples should be put aside in deference to "obvious insight" elevates prejudice over science.

Neither of these involves me disagreeing with the assertion that "a mother really matters in a baby's life". On this question I defer to the scholarly evidence, which as far as I know doesn't address this assertion. However it does indicate that the quality of the parenting matters more than the gender of the parents.

Jim Woulfe

<< We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of same-sex orientation>>

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of incestuous orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of polyamorous orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of child marriage orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of bestial orientation.

Inanely parroting "basic human rights" doesn't make them so.
Just like claiming to represent 10% of the population doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming a genetic basis for homosexuality doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming homosexually "parented" children have better outcomes doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming homosexuality is immutable doesn't make it so.
Just because constant parroting convinces gullible apologists to parrot to others what you have parroted to them doesn't make it so.

"Just because constant parroting convinces gullible apologists to parrot to others what you have parroted to them doesn't make it so."
-Proxy

Quite right, Proxy. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Just like claiming homosexuality is unnatural doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming that sexual orientation is a choice doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming that homosexuality is morally equivalent to incest, pedophilia etc. doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming all gays are out to get everyone doesn't make it any more than a paranoid delusion.

You see, Proxy, no matter how often nor how loudly you repeat your sophisms, no amount of wishful thinking will ever make them come true. Nature pays no heed to the inconsequential opinions of men, and reality does not bend to one's will (no, not even if you have read 'The Secret').

Post Script:

Sorry, I forgot to add this earlier:

Just like claiming that evidence is the plural of anecdote.