• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Hicup said:
Of course I'm intolerant. So? :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Sew buttons

But it just means you shouldn't be setting any legal policies since you're too willing to infringe upon the liberties of certain groups.
 
Redress said:
Actually yes, I have read the full article. That is why I know that Dr. Stacey concluded that children raised by gays do just as well as children raised by straits. Further, the article you linked is from 2001, whereas my link was from 2005. Dr. Stacey helped correct some methodology issues in this 2001 article, and has improved the studies done since...remember, my source was from 2005. Further, there are even more recent studies. Here, from 2010: Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers - life - 08 June 2010 - New Scientist



Now, do you want to try and document that children of gay parents do not do as well as those of strait parents? Or are we supposed to take your word for it?
Click to expand...


Do yoiu have the actual study to examine? I don't see a link to it in the NS site?

Also, you forgot ths part of your quoted portion? Why not post this part Redress?

Compared with a group of control adolescents born to heterosexual parents with similar educational and financial backgrounds, the children of lesbian couples scored better on academic and social tests and lower on measures of rule-breaking and aggression.
Click to expand...

Odd that you would miss that part, since it forms the complete sentence? Why stop at the scored better on this, and forget to add the but faired lower on that? Really weird?

Show me the study, I'd like to see the data set.


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Sew buttons

But it just means you shouldn't be setting any legal policies since you're too willing to infringe upon the liberties of certain groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is so, but not without a well reasoned and rational justification. You're not in agreement, that's cool, this is America. You have a soapbox too, and you, like me, are using it :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yes, that is so, but not without a well reasoned and rational justification. You're not in agreement, that's cool, this is America. You have a soapbox too, and you, like me, are using it :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Anyone can use a soap box. However, we cannot actually infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual. Which is where you seem to err.
 
Hicup said:
Do yoiu have the actual study to examine? I don't see a link to it in the NS site?

Also, you forgot ths part of your quoted portion? Why not post this part Redress?



Odd that you would miss that part, since it forms the complete sentence? Why stop at the scored better on this, and forget to add the but faired lower on that? Really weird?

Show me the study, I'd like to see the data set.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Hint: I quoted the lead paragraph of the article, in it's entirety. You quoted an entirely different sentence from further in the article. No trying to hide anything as you imply.

The study found that they children did better overall, not in every area. I never claimed otherwise. Further, this is in line with other similar studies. You have so far presented exactly nothing to counter these studies. Not one bit of evidence otherwise, despite being asked repeatedly. Wonder why that is....
 
Redress -
Actually yes, I have read the full article. That is why I know that Dr. Stacey concluded that children raised by gays do just as well as children raised by straits. Further, the article you linked is from 2001, whereas my link was from 2005. Dr. Stacey helped correct some methodology issues in this 2001 article, and has improved the studies done since...remember, my source was from 2005
Click to expand...

Oh I missed this. Are you referring to the WebMD "article". Show me the study. I'm not in the business of having other people form conclusions for me. I think for myself on issue like this. Why don't you? Just ask yourself how in the world a child of gay parents can fair as well as that of heterosexual parents? What criterion are you using? How in the world can they identify with both genders in a single gender home? Unless, (which I am SURE you are in favor of) gender identification isn't important to the psychological, sexual, and spiritual health of a child? You might say this, and in fact many here have already said as much, but it doesn't make it true, and the empirical data trumps any notion that you might have even an inkling of credibility with such a claim.


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Anyone can use a soap box. However, we cannot actually infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual. Which is where you seem to err.
Click to expand...

Yes we can..

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yes we can..

Tim-
Click to expand...

Not rightfully, no you cannot. Not by the principles which founded this country, no you cannot. Through the use of tryannical government force against the free rights and liberties of the individual; sure. But people endorsing treason and tyranny shouldn't be allowed input.
 
Redress said:
Hint: I quoted the lead paragraph of the article, in it's entirety. You quoted an entirely different sentence from further in the article. No trying to hide anything as you imply.

The study found that they children did better overall, not in every area. I never claimed otherwise. Further, this is in line with other similar studies. You have so far presented exactly nothing to counter these studies. Not one bit of evidence otherwise, despite being asked repeatedly. Wonder why that is....
Click to expand...


Yes, yes, the "article" makes this claim, but without the actual study, I'm not inclined to agree, just because the "article" says so. Think for yourself, Redress.. I have done exactly what you've asked, and what many others have asked. The data in Staceys study says something a lot different than what she concludes overall. You didn't read the 2001 study, I even gave you the specific areas to look at. The data set is also there. You didn't read it at all, you read the conclusion, and thought that this was enough. You also have not provided the 2005 "corrections". I'd like to see them, do you have them?


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Not rightfully, no you cannot. Not by the principles which founded this country, no you cannot. Through the use of tryannical government force against the free rights and liberties of the individual; sure. But people endorsing treason and tyranny shouldn't be allowed input.
Click to expand...

Sure you can.. It's not tyranny. It all rests on what is fundamental. Sheesh you people keep regurgitating the same slop. Is it your hope that if you keep me busy saying the same things over and over that I'll get tired and go away? Not likely sunshine.. Not likely at all.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yes, yes, the "article" makes this claim, but without the actual study, I'm not inclined to agree, just because the "article" says so. Think for yourself, Redress.. I have done exactly what you've asked, and what many others have asked. The data in Staceys study says something a lot different than what she concludes overall. You didn't read the 2001 study, I even gave you the specific areas to look at. The data set is also there. You didn't read it at all, you read the conclusion, and thought that this was enough. You also have not provided the 2005 "corrections". I'd like to see them, do you have them?


Tim-
Click to expand...

See, this is the typical methodology of some one who has nothing. Evade, avoid, cloud. You have shown no evidence that children raised by gays do less well than those raised by straits. You constantly avoid doing so. You only try and demean anything others actually do bring as evidence. It's the same strategy that Creationists use. Don't prove your point, try and cast doubt on the other view, and hope people mistake that s meaning your view is right.

So come on, link to and quote some actual evidence.
 
Hicup said:
Sure you can.. It's not tyranny. It all rests on what is fundamental. Sheesh you people keep regurgitating the same slop. Is it your hope that if you keep me busy saying the same things over and over that I'll get tired and go away? Not likely sunshine.. Not likely at all.


Tim-
Click to expand...

The unjust use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is most certainly tyranny. What is fundamental in America is the rights and liberties of the individual. That's why we made this Republic and one of the key factors government was made to protect. If you act against that you act in tyranny against others. Tyranny can and should be violently resisted.
 
Hicup said:
Sure you can.. It's not tyranny. It all rests on what is fundamental. Sheesh you people keep regurgitating the same slop. Is it your hope that if you keep me busy saying the same things over and over that I'll get tired and go away? Not likely sunshine.. Not likely at all.


Tim-
Click to expand...

It's not our fault you keep regurgitating the same flawed arguments time and again. If you stop, we will stop using the same counterarguments.
 
If I had a day or three, I could put up example after example after link after link of why 'traditional marriage' is inherently flawed and has done serious damage to ... wait a minute, hicup. You're on your second marriage. So you should know all about how there are no guarantees when it comes to 'traditional marriage'.
 
winston53660 said:
And just how would you feel if people came after your freedoms?
Click to expand...

It's hard to be logical with someone who has already rationalized mob rule and tyranny as proper functions of government based on personal intolerance and bigotry.
 
Redress said:
See, this is the typical methodology of some one who has nothing. Evade, avoid, cloud. You have shown no evidence that children raised by gays do less well than those raised by straits. You constantly avoid doing so. You only try and demean anything others actually do bring as evidence. It's the same strategy that Creationists use. Don't prove your point, try and cast doubt on the other view, and hope people mistake that s meaning your view is right.

So come on, link to and quote some actual evidence.
Click to expand...

I could say the same for you. You have provided ZERO, nadda, zilch evidence. You only provide "article" that do the thinking for you. I on the other hand do not simply take someones word for something. I look at the data. You haven't done that, and I suspect you have no specific training in statistical analysis, which is ok, but it also explains why you're unable to offer up any opinion of your own concerning the study. Instead opting to quote the opinions of others. Statistical data, only at best gives us the ability to form conclusions based on correlative value, not causative. They can sometimes lead to the truth, but by themselves they are NOT the truth. Do you understand that concept, Redress? Statistical analysis of data sets, and variables lead us in the right direction. In other words, it tells us where we should look next.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you. You haven't provided evidence of any truth, nor have I, because there isn't any truth yet on the subject.

Let me give you an example. (And I swear I have no idea why I'm wasting my time with educating you). IN your 2010 study, I already know that seeing the data is extremely important based on what you had quoted. Know why? Because the variable used for the test scores is missing. It only says that similarly situated heterosexual parents, and children of the same age were used. It gives no other data, no variables, no screening methods, nothing.. It doesn't say ANYTHING that would suffice as evidence.

Now, do you have the study or should I go look for it myself?


Tim-
 
BDBoop said:
If I had a day or three, I could put up example after example after link after link of why 'traditional marriage' is inherently flawed and has done serious damage to ... wait a minute, hicup. You're on your second marriage. So you should know all about how there are no guarantees when it comes to 'traditional marriage'.
Click to expand...

Right, but it has no bearing on the validity of traditional marriage. There's no inconsistency, and you're little attempt to goad me, is transparent. There's no inconsistency with my personal life and my view on marriage.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I could say the same for you. You have provided ZERO, nadda, zilch evidence. You only provide "article" that do the thinking for you. I on the other hand do not simply take someones word for something. I look at the data. You haven't done that, and I suspect you have no specific training in statistical analysis, which is ok, but it also explains why you're unable to offer up any opinion of your own concerning the study. Instead opting to quote the opinions of others. Statistical data, only at best gives us the ability to form conclusions based on correlative value, not causative. They can sometimes lead to the truth, but by themselves they are NOT the truth. Do you understand that concept, Redress? Statistical analysis of data sets, and variables lead us in the right direction. In other words, it tells us where we should look next.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you. You haven't provided evidence of any truth, nor have I, because there isn't any truth yet on the subject.

Let me give you an example. (And I swear I have no idea why I'm wasting my time with educating you). IN your 2010 study, I already know that seeing the data is extremely important based on what you had quoted. Know why? Because the variable used for the test scores is missing. It only says that similarly situated heterosexual parents, and children of the same age were used. It gives no other data, no variables, no screening methods, nothing.. It doesn't say ANYTHING that would suffice as evidence.

Now, do you have the study or should I go look for it myself?


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, I provided sources with state that the studies exist, and what they show. This is significantly more than you have provided, which is, well, an article which states the exact opposite of your premise, and an opinion piece.

By the way, the original source article you could not find: US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents -- Gartrell and Bos, 10.1542/peds.2009-3153 -- Pediatrics

Conclusions Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.
 
Redress said:
No, I provided sources with state that the studies exist, and what they show. This is significantly more than you have provided, which is, well, an article which states the exact opposite of your premise, and an opinion piece.

By the way, the original source article you could not find: US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents -- Gartrell and Bos, 10.1542/peds.2009-3153 -- Pediatrics



Google is your friend.
Click to expand...

Apparently it is NOT your friend since this isn't the study. It's a summary, and it suffer from one glaring methodological flaw already, particularly here:

Results According to their mothers' reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach's normative sample of American youth. Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated.
Click to expand...

So, assuming the mother's knew of the studies intent, the integrity of the data set is not credible. Moreover, the questions would have to be exactly the same as the corresponding normative sample. I don't know that, since this isn't the whole study. Furthermore, the questions themselves must have strict control measurements, and again, I don't know that since this isn't the whole study.

Nice try, but on the face, I will say that the study is flawed if the control sample knew of the intent.

Plus, and this is a BIG ONE, is this:

Dr. Gartrell was the first out lesbian on the Harvard Medical School faculty
Click to expand...

Link: http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...ute/For+the+Media/Experts/Nanette+Gartrell+MD


Oops.. :)

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Apparently it is NOT your friend since this isn't the study. It's a summary, and it suffer from one glaring methodological flaw already, particularly here:



So, assuming the mother's knew of the studies intent, the integrity of the data set is not credible. Moreover, the questions would have to be exactly the same as the corresponding normative sample. I don't know that, since this isn't the whole study. Furthermore, the questions themselves must have strict control measurements, and again, I don't know that since this isn't the whole study.

Nice try, but on the face, I will say that the study is flawed if the control sample knew of the intent.

Plus, and this is a BIG ONE, is this:



Link: http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/conn...ute/For+the+Media/Experts/Nanette+Gartrell+MD


Oops.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Hint: you have nothing, I have presented multiple sources. You are doing exactly what I said you would, none of which invalidates the study in any way. You made a claim, which you failed to back up. This is not my fault. I have presented evidence(and have more), you have presented nothing except a link which actually disproves your claim. Feel free to actually support your claim, but so far, it looks to be 100 %, entirely, completely, totally false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom