• 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!

Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

Redress said:
Of course it matters. Without a source, it is a meaningless claim.
Click to expand...

I gave 2 sources ... but my question was if a source to some people would just be something to take comfort in denying when ThinkProgress says so.
 
bubbabgone said:
Need more ?

http://www.law2.byu.edu/page/categories/marriage_family/2013_march/drafts/Schumm Fact or Fiction.pdf

"Within less than a month after Schumm (2010) was published, Gartrell, Bos, and Goldberg (2011) published a report online in which children, especially daughters, of lesbian mothers reported high levels of nonheterosexual sexual orientation and same-sex sexual contact..."

...But you'll need to check with ThinkProgress before forming an opinion.
Click to expand...

Schumm based his research on 10 commercial books, picked not at random. In other words, it is bull****.
 
Redress said:
Wrong. He claims that. He does not admit it. It is not entirely true.
Click to expand...
How can a small selective sample of an inherently small sample be enough to determine if a policy change would be harmless?
 
bubbabgone said:
I gave 2 sources ... but my question was if a source to some people would just be something to take comfort in denying when ThinkProgress says so.
Click to expand...

Both sources are flawed. Those sources have been used in the past here, we went over them, found major problems with them. If you want to present data, already discounted poorly done studies is not the best way to do it.

And by the way, I do not read ThinkProgress, so you will have to try a new tactic.
 
bubbabgone said:
How can a small selective sample of an inherently small sample be enough to determine if a policy change would be harmless?
Click to expand...

You might want to ask pollsters how they can do it.
 
Redress said:
The Regnerus study does not look at same sex parenting. It looks at outcomes of children in 2 parent intact homes, vs the outcomes of children who at least one parent had a same sex sexual encounter. For this reason alone, it is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

So your point, then, is that if both parents were clearly & behaviorally the same sex, then the children would show no homosexual tendencies beyond what you'd expect?

The study expanded the sample universe ... it didn't skew it.

Studies that allow it's sample to define itself are problems and that's what you've been fed.
 
bubbabgone said:
So your point, then, is that if both parents were clearly & behaviorally the same sex, then the children would show no homosexual tendencies beyond what you'd expect?

The study expanded the sample universe ... it didn't skew it.

Studies that allow it's sample to define itself are problems and that's what you've been fed.
Click to expand...

No, you are now making **** up. My point is simply and completely that the Regnurus study and the Schumm study are fatally flawed for reasons mentioned.
 
Bronson said:
If marriage is a Civil Right who would you exclude?
Click to expand...
While I cannot speak for anyone else,(wish more people on this forum felt that way) it's not my place to exclude.Nor do I have the power to do so.
And neither do you.
But if you ask me what my opinion is,I'd say children,plant's,and animals.

Here's a "what-if" scenerio.
What if we discover a sentient alien race and a member of their race,and a member of our race wanted to get married,(even though by external appearances look similar) would you try to prevent it?
If we were living in the Star Trek Universe,would you object to the marriage of the Vulcan named Sarek and the human named Amanda Grayson?
Lil' Spock's fate is dependent on the answer.
Bronson said:
Marriage has always meant man + woman.
Click to expand...
So what?Words can,have, and do change since humans started using words.
Bronson said:
Why would only gays get the special civil right to change the definition to fit what they want,and not anyone else?
Click to expand...

And are you saying that gays shouldn't have the right to at least try to change it?
Just asking?

Bronson said:
Is the US a Republic where each state can decide what marriage is because marriage isn't in The Constitution, or is this country ruled by 9 lawyers in black robes with an iron fist?
Click to expand...

Well,it sure isn't a theocracy,I can tell you that much.
Since I am in an interracial marriage,me and my wife are kind of glad the SCOTUS interfered when it did.

Look,I believe in states rights like any good Republican should.
But up to a point.
I don't want the states to determine that my marriage to a white woman isn't valid any more.
Eventually,even if SCOTUS doesn't interfere,I believe all 50 states will eventually allow SSM.

Bronson said:
Gay Marriage is not a civil right
Click to expand...
That's your opinion.

Bronson said:
Do you believe Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Click to expand...
Of course I do.
I don't know about YOUR marriage (are you even married?) but me and Selena (and me and my late first wife Allison before her) had to go to City Hall,fill out some paper work,pay a fee,and get a marriage license before we could even get to the marriage ceremony.
Me and my wife file joint tax returns to the government.
So yeah,I think gay marriage is a civil right.
 
Redress said:
You might want to ask pollsters how they can do it.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. When the universe is small to begin with you can't let the chosen sample from that universe select itself and that's what had been done.

If you at least read the beginning of Regnerus he explains what had been going on ... he gives examples, and it should be obvious on it's face without needing an explanation...

... The NLLFS employs a convenience sample, recruited entirely by self-selection from announcements posted ‘‘at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in les-bian newspapers’’ in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco. While I do not wish to downplay the significance of such alongitudinal study—it is itself quite a feat—this sampling approach is a problem when the goal (or in this case, the practicalresult and conventional use of its findings) is to generalize to a population. All such samples are biased, often in unknownways. As a formal sampling method, ‘‘snowball sampling is known to have some serious problems,’’ one expert asserts (Snij-ders, 1992,p. 59). Indeed, such samples are likely biased toward ‘‘inclusion of those who have many interrelationships with,or are coupled to, a large number of other individuals’’ (Berg, 1988, p. 531). But apart from the knowledge of individuals’inclusion probability, unbiased estimation is not possible. ...
 
bubbabgone said:
here we go again ... father / son?
Click to expand...

Honestly, why not? Give me one good reason, outside of tradition and your personal "ick" factor, that's unreasonable.
 
Redress said:
No, you are now making **** up. My point is simply and completely that the Regnurus study and the Schumm study are fatally flawed for reasons mentioned.
Click to expand...

see post #950
 
bubbabgone said:
You don't understand. When the universe is small to begin with you can't let the chosen sample from that universe select itself and that's what had been done.

If you at least read the beginning of Regnerus he explains what had been going on ... he gives examples, and it should be obvious on it's face without needing an explanation...

... The NLLFS employs a convenience sample, recruited entirely by self-selection from announcements posted ‘‘at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in les-bian newspapers’’ in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco. While I do not wish to downplay the significance of such alongitudinal study—it is itself quite a feat—this sampling approach is a problem when the goal (or in this case, the practicalresult and conventional use of its findings) is to generalize to a population. All such samples are biased, often in unknownways. As a formal sampling method, ‘‘snowball sampling is known to have some serious problems,’’ one expert asserts (Snij-ders, 1992,p. 59). Indeed, such samples are likely biased toward ‘‘inclusion of those who have many interrelationships with,or are coupled to, a large number of other individuals’’ (Berg, 1988, p. 531). But apart from the knowledge of individuals’inclusion probability, unbiased estimation is not possible. ...
Click to expand...

Self selection is a potential problem. Sample size not so much.
 
Cephus said:
Honestly, why not? Give me one good reason, outside of tradition and your personal "ick" factor, that's unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I guess there's something to be said for consistency.
Sorry ... but it needs to be asked ... beastiality?
 
bubbabgone said:
I guess there's something to be said for consistency.
Sorry ... but it needs to be asked ... beastiality?
Click to expand...

Animals cannot enter into legal contracts. Next?
 
bubbabgone said:
I guess there's something to be said for consistency.
Sorry ... but it needs to be asked ... beastiality?
Click to expand...

Bestiality and other practices that are not SSM are irrelevant to SSM. Legally and practically the arguments are different.
 
Just for the record:

American Academy of Pediatrics said:
extensive data from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Self selection is a potential problem. Sample size not so much.
Click to expand...



Oh yes it is a problem.
If your sample is garnered from a naturally small sample of lesbian couples, for example ... and it consists of eager beavers, excuse the expression, who are out to make it clear that everything is hunky dory ... then, yeah, it's a problem.
 
bubbabgone said:
All the more reason that you should have no objections.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal contract, anyone or anything that cannot enter into a legal contract is not eligible for marriage.
 
Okay let's just assume kids of gay parents are slightly more likely to be gay and or experiment with gay sex.

So what? Who cares! Homosexuality is not a disease, sheesh.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay let's just assume kids of gay parents are slightly more likely to be gay and or experiment with gay sex.

So what? Who cares! Homosexuality is not a disease, sheesh.
Click to expand...

That was my point on day one and it was met with days of challenges ... which pretty much exposed the shallow depth of SSM conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom