Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If kids of gay parents were equally healthy, why wouldn't eating cupcakes cause pregnancy?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:52 AM
Original message
If kids of gay parents were equally healthy, why wouldn't eating cupcakes cause pregnancy?
Summary: On his television program, Bill O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?"

On the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly dismissed scientific research on same-sex parenting to assert that "(n)ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum" form of child-rearing. O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?" O'Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples' right to raise children, "you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

Additionally, O'Reilly, presumably referring to Media Matters, claimed that following a December 6 O'Reilly Factor segment on Mary Cheney's pregnancy, "(t)he loony websites cranked up their propaganda, accusing me of demeaning Miss Cheney and gay parents in general." Continuing, O'Reilly stated: "Well, that nonsense was picked up by two far-left columnists at the very liberal, very liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The secular-progressive pipeline strikes again." O'Reilly appeared to be referring to a December 11 Post-Intelligencer column by Joel Connelly and a December 13 column by Susan Paynter. Connelly wrote in his column, as Media Matters had noted, that during his October 6 television show, O'Reilly "criticized Sen. John Kerry as not being 'respectful' of Mary Cheney's 'private life' when Kerry mentioned her sexual orientation in a TV debate," yet now hosted a "segment" on "Cheney's pregnancy and same-sex parenting." Paynter stated in her column: "Of course, that 'think tank' and brain trusts such as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly could be counted on to feign concern for the supposedly perilous futures of such kids. Of course, they'd spew specious statistics about risks and propensities. It's what they do."

On the December 13 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "if you disagree" that "there's no difference between gays raising kids and a mom-dad situation ... the S-P (secular progressive) press will try to hurt you," and later dismissed scientific research showing that being raised by same-sex parents does not appear to harm children's psychosocial development. During a discussion with Family Pride executive director Jennifer Chrisler, O'Reilly claimed that it was merely Chrisler's "story" that, in Chrisler's words, "(c)hildren do equally as well when" they are raised by same-sex parents and concluded that "(n)ature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum, does it not?"

In fact, the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Child Welfare League of America, among others, have all noted that credible scientific data shows that children suffer no harm from being reared by same-sex parents.

<snip>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150001
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Got an "experiment" that will take some time for the research to pay off
I have a RW-talking-points-spouting brother.

He spent much of 2004 sending me all the crap that came out of RWers' most offensive orifices (their mouths) ...

Anyway, he and his wife have been married 1 year less than me and my wife have (them, 15 years). They have a wonderful 6 year old daughter.

Thanksgiving brought things to a boil ... my brother was contemplating divorce, after my sister-in-law got drunk and threatened to sue my sister. (There have been many more things throughout the years, including a reported fight the day before their wedding).

Sister-in-law has said that she doesn't love him. The latest news is that they're going to stay together until the daughter "gets out of school" (my wife says it might work until daughter turns 12, I'm not so sure it would last close to that long!).

So, there's an experiment I might be reporting on ... the effects of a loveless marriage on the child's psyche ... instead of two people who love each other and are more likely to treat the kid they wanted (my sister-in-law passes off the kid as soon as my brother gets home from work).

So, I'll keep updating ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. But 'nature' DOESN'T dictate a dad and a mom is the optimum.
In fact, in most animal species, it is one male that does the impregnating with several females. Once that is done, so is he and the 'kids' are raised by the females of the pack/herd/pride/troop/whatever. In a lot of cases the males are actively run off so the offspring don't even have a male example to emulate. What's so different there from 2 gay people raising kids? In 'nature' it is done by one gender and one gender only in most cases.

Maybe O'Reilly needs to watch more National Geographic or Animal Planet programs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. Not only a complete non-sequitur,
But one of the stupidest things ever to come out of his mouth. The more desperate a RWer gets during an argument, the crazier and dumber they sound. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swimboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm saving my cupcakes for marriage.
O8)


No, seriously. He must really think he's magical. I guess before long, he will forget there are any other people around and just sit worshipping his marvelous self and the sound of his voice.

Wotta fruitcake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Funny how O'Liely seperates Nature from Science
....considering science is the observation of NATURAL laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've never watched this ass. Don't intend to watch him. But
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 09:56 PM by TaleWgnDg
what I've read about him and others like him on the boob-tube is that they are sensationalized bottom-feeders puking stuff like a car accident on the side of the road wherein folks slow down to watch whatever's happening. This crap on television sells, period. O'Reilly and the other bottom-feeders do their crap merely for money. Money, attention, self-aggrandizement, blah-blah-blah.

Pointless. All of them. So I ask, "Why should what spews from their blatherings have any importance whatsoever?" Here, it's so damn illogical what O'Reilly spewed that it goes beyond the pale of any core 1st or 2nd year college course in logical/critical thinking. Why be surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. Either I'm being incredibly dense...
...or O'Reilly is getting stupider, because I read that excerpt over three times, and I still don't get the "cupcake" idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. When did the Post-Intelligencer become left-wing?
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 12:17 AM by Dinkeldog
I remember it being pretty conservative during the 90s.

Edit: And if the presence of a man and woman was necessary for the well-being of a child, then why doesn't Nature ensure that pregnancies don't happen on one-night stands?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. mmhmmmm........ cupcakes.......n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC