A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
This part of our conversation is becoming a lot like the one at the bottom of our posts, so I'm just going to combine them to save space.
My argument is not that they need opposite sex role models. My argument is that two heads are better than one. You made the false claim that the reason for lower rates of success in single parent children is that there's only one sex in the household, which I do not agree. I am pointing out the fact that two heads are better than one.It is simple inference. If children raised in single sex / single parent households tend to suffer for it due to the lack of same and/or opposite sex role models, why on earth would children raised in single sex / homosexual households be any different.
If anything, you need to provide evidence to support the assertion that the two situations are in any way different.
I gave examples. If you cannot counter them, then do do not act as though I said nothing significant. If you wish, I can go deeper into it.Which is all a lot of very vague and insubstantial quibbling which really signifies nothing.
Correct. I'm glad to see you payed attention.Besides, I'm just about positive that you have stated repeatedly at this point that the role played by a care giver did not matter so long as the child was rasied in a loving home.
We'd be asking about how her relationship with her mother is different then her relationship with her partner. I don't how your claims of bias hold and ground.Yea.. I'm sure she that she's a real "objective" and "impartial" source on the matter.
Because you brought up tradition as part of the social converative act. I pointed out that simply because we've been doing it for a long time does not mean it's a good thing.Then why are we discussing it?
I asked by 'who' not what. 'Objective reality' is not a person/group.Objective reality. By definition, one cannot be a member of any minority group that only makes up slightly more or less than 1% of a given society's population and still be considered "normal."
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
As a general rule, children of same sex couples deserve the same rights and protections inherent in having married parents as do children of opposite sex couples. When you brought children into the argument you lost because opposite sex couples do not have a monopoly on raising children. People will and do procreate regardless of marriage and as such it is not a basis for discriminating who does and does not deserve to marry. To the contrary, the true basis for marriage in a modern society is on providing stable homes to raise children, of which over 30 years of evidence supports that same sex couples are well equipped to do.Policies are not made for the exceptions, they are made for the general rule... who is to say that advances in science cannot allow fertility? That those who choose not to have children suddenly choose to have some. Giving the right to the elderly female and male will not erase the lines as presently drawn and open up the dread of negative unintended, some of which are foreseeable, consequences.
In other words, your argument is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy of which you have no evidence to support. Did you realize that the states with the lowest divorce rates are actually the states which have and support same sex marriage? That has not changed.We, as you know, haven't really had the time to study it yet. But we do know that once you erase the line of tradition, the walls holding back the floods of chaos will soon coming crashing in. Who will we then say no to? Anything and everything will be allowed...what would be the legal basis of denying anybody the right to marriage to anybody, or in some cases, or anything? That clearly would be chaos, think about that critically. Society cannot withstand such assaults for very long.
Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery was a tradition, as was denying anyone but white, male property owners the right to vote. Traditions are not inherently good or "proven" as you state. They are simply an established attitude or practice.Tradition is a proven entity, so comes up ACES... what you got in your deck of fallacies that might beat mine? Experimentation is better than a proven winner? Not so good...so what ya got?
A meta-analysis uses several RANDOM samples to make generalizations about a population. However, Schumm and Cameron deliberated used NONRANDOM samples in their analysis. As such the methodology was completely unsound. All I had to do to prove such was show that the samples he used were not randomly selected and therefore not representative. It is psuedoscience for people who do not understand how an actual meta-analysis is suppose to work.
Let me give you an example. What Schumm and Cameron did was like going to Denver zoo in Colorado to get an idea of the natural wildlife in Colorado. The owners of the zoo intentionally made the zoo so it is not representative of wildlife in Colorado. You don't see lions and tigers running through the Rocky Mountains.
In the same way, some of the authors of the books that Schumm and Cameron used intentionally made it so their books were not representative because they were trying to appeal specifically to gay parents. As such, some of the books are half about gay parents with straight children and the other half about gay parents with gay children.
Let me state this clearly since it is apparent you haven't actually read their study. What they did was take several BOOKS, not scientific studies, but literary BOOKS written by people on gay parenting. He used those BOOKS as if they were REPRESENTATIVE samples in his "meta-analysis". However the authors of the books specifically chose who they put and did not put in the book in order to balance it out. The author of at least one book cited by Schumm in his "meta-analysis", Abigail Garner, PURPOSELY selected half of the children featured in her book to be the Gay children of Gay parents.
Do you think that would be a representative sample? As such, it was not only a self selected sample, but a researcher biased sample. The authors chose to put a disproportionate number of stories of gay parents who raised gay kids.
To make it clear, a meta analysis needs to be composed of relatively RANDOM samples to be valid. Do you understand what that means or am I wasting my time?
A. Yes. The state has the legitimate mission of continuance, survival. A nation achieves this promoting those policies which best achieve that end, discouraging that which detracts.
WE, the people, desire to survive as a strong nation. Promoting strong families, the building blocks of any strong nation wanting to continue past more than a few generations, is a compelling state interest. We can easily view Europe and its demographics crisis due, in large part, to liberal policies put in place there within just the last three generations... it is more and more imperative that we do the right things. We have been so mired in going in the wrong direction, and now more than ever, need to come to that realization.
Our government does not prohibit private unions of same sex couples, we are a tolerant nation, so acceptance in many situations has been accomplished. But to press this, forcing society to fundamentally change into something that brings with it no particular benefit, thus no compelling state interest, for the benefit of less than 4% of the population, a population that is not replacing itself but must rely, and actually draw upon the others, seems more of a burden, most certainly does not promote the general welfare. With no definitive proof as to whether sexual orientation is due to nature or to nurture or any combination of the two, and as it could very well be heavily influenced through nurture, the state interest being survival and maintaining its vitality, why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
Answer: there is no compelling interest in so doing and many reasons not to do so.
B. You do not base policy on the exception, you base it on the rule [the majority]. Only opposite sex couplings, egg and sperm, produce offspring. While there are the few same sex parented families, in comparison to the whole, indeed out there, we must base policies on the majority. We allow this rarity in society, yet we have no reason to promote nor encourage this type of family unit. Demanding more, demanding equal status when such couplings are not the same, are not inherently equal and do not perform anywhere near the optimal for long term health of a society... that becomes a selfish need at the expense of the whole.
C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage to show what works, what does not. We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long. But tell me, since you do not attempt to even address the major question, upon what legal basis will we deny anybody from marrying anybody or anything? After we fundamentally change society? And do you deny that allowing everybody to do whatever they want will only lead to chaos? Whether you do or not, it would... and most people given a proper understanding that our laws will not allow you to just open the door a crack, to allow just what "you" want to come in, once open you let it ALL in.
As you know, regarding divorce same sex states blah blah, correlation is not equivalent to causation. Could be all myriad reasons for that stat, probably not underrepresented is that many people might be giving up on marriage as a whole, it being seen to be of less and less worth with dilution and ease of divorce.
D. Again, you have nothing to trump tradition, experimental societies come and go, seldom even noticed, often unheard of and forgotten to history. We have a proven system. Often smart/best to go home with the one that brought you to the dance. Again, you go with the rarities [Slavery], the exception upon which to base policy? We have the incubators of democracy with states, take it as far as you can go in the states, let the people there decide, then watch, see what happens... but to force everyone, whether they/we like it, believe in it, or not, that we must do as the minority says, would that not be rather totalitarian and a tyranny of the minority?
Even if that's so, there is no evidence--zero!--that same sex marriage "detracts" from our "survival" or "continuance" as a society in any way.
Again: how is it in conflict with long-term survival?why should the state promote policies that are determined in all probability to be in conflict with one of its primary missions of long term survival?
Marriage and what it means not only has differed from place to place, but has changed radically within every old society.C. Slippery slopes can slope either way. We have thousands of years of study of traditional marriage
These changes predate the "three generations" of European iniquity which you elsewhere summon, and by a long shot.
We have no studies of existing same sex cultures as none have survived. It is difficult to see how one, could, in fact, survive very long.
Who, pray tell, is trying to create a "same sex culture?"