• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
If you go and find a study that shows that the earth is flat... and it is debunked as false, your study is WRONG, and your comment "would you accept it" is idiotic. When a study is presented, it needs to be analyzed.
I have posted SCORES of studies on this issue at DP. I have read them all. The ones that are methodologically unsound are dismissed.
Click to expand...
Your study is invalid and dismissed. Your comment "would you accept it" is therefore also dismissed.
Click to expand...

Scores? Wow.
Name 'em.
The ones you accepted ... & the ones you dismissed ... after applying that superhuman scrutiny you see yourself practicing ... especially the ones you rejected even though they supported what you wanted them to support.
This oughta be good.
I betcha I know what's coming next.
 
Verthaine said:
Your words,not mine.
Click to expand...

Your words. You literally had 2 maybe 3 exceptions.

Don't they already have that ability?
There are plenty of straight people out there who want the definition to change.
I believe the word is called "a majority".
Click to expand...

Prop 8 passed and people like you are trying to overturn the vote of the people. Do you even keep up with the news? Embarrassing.

Discrimination based on sexuality is still discrimination.
Not a special sexual interest group trying to change the definition from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?.
Click to expand...

Gays not being allowed to change the definition over any other sexual interest group is not discrimination

Yes gays are a sexual interest group trying to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

Oh I get it.I see what you are trying to do.
You're trying to lump gays with pedophiles and people who want to marry their cow.
By using the term "sexual interest group" you are trying to portray gay people as something sinister.
Click to expand...

Your words. Not mine. Who would you exclude if marriage is a "Civil Right". Do you fundamentally understand what a Civil Right even is?

You do realize my daughter is gay,right?
There is nothing "sinister" about her.
And she's way to busy with her studies at med school to even be a part of any "sexual interest group".
Click to expand...

I don't care if your daughter is gay

Hate the sin. Not the sinner.

You do realize I'm black,right?
And that my parents were active members of the civil rights movement.
So why don't you tell me ALL about the struggle WE blacks went through.
Especially my parent.Because I had a ringside seat.
My parents went through hell so that I can have the rights that I enjoy as an American citizen.
Things that I witnessed with my own two eyes growing up.
My wife and I can do no less for our daughter.
Click to expand...

Comparing the struggle that blacks went through to gay marriage is insensitive and racist against blacks

This is a message board. You can claim anything you want on the internet. Doesn't make it true and you're once again using emotional arguments. Not logical ones.

Never said it was.Are you saying being attracted to the same sex is a bad thing?

If I recall correctly, for a very long time,in many states,a black man being attracted to a white woman was a reason for a lynching.
Click to expand...

Comparing blacks to gays is insensitive and racist against blacks. Blacks can't not have black skin. Gays can choose whether to have sex or not. Shame on you for minimizing the real struggle blacks went through in this country, which was based upon nothing more than their appearance, to a person's sexual preference.

I know first hand about the struggle we blacks had to go through, because I witnessed it growing up with my parents.
Click to expand...

Which makes your comparisons even more egregious. You should know the difference.

Have you ever seen your father beaten by cops during a peaceful civil rights demonstration?
I have.
Ever had the words "niggers get out" painted on your front door?
I had when I was growing up.
Ever got beaten up by a bunch of jocks in highschool just because you asked a girl of their race out?
I have.

You do realize that I am married to a white woman also?
So don't even try to drop the innuendo that I'm racist.
Click to expand...

It is racist to compare the real struggle that blacks went through in this country to gays demanding the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

For some reason,I don't think you are a "very liberal" at all.
Click to expand...

What gave you that impression?

Again,that's you opinion.
Civil right's isn't a "black thing" in civil rights.
And maybe it's time we include "marriage"
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a Civil Right

It's not prohibited by the Constitution,either.And the Constitution can be changed you know
Click to expand...

The states should decide. That isn't good enough for people like you.

But quite a number of them had no problem owning slaves,now did they?
Click to expand...

Many of them had a problem owning slaves and we fought a bloody civil war over it. Again, comparing that history with gays having the special right to change the definition of marriage is racist and insensitive. It's demeans what blacks went through. Shame on you.

We live in the 21st century.They didn't.
Things have changed a bit since their time.
Go build a time machine,grab a few of them,and lets here what THEY have to say about the subject.
Click to expand...

So now The Founders go under the bus because they don't agree with your agenda. The Founders drafted the greatest document in the History of Mankind and setup a system with certain rules that people like you aren't willing to follow if it doesn't suit your political agenda. It was by design that each individual state should vote on social issues like this. Not centrally planned top down mandated social experiments.

The Founding Fathers were human beings,not Gods we have to worship.
They weren't perfect.
Click to expand...

Neither are gay people. What gives gays the special right to change the definition of marriage over any other sexual interest group?

I couldn't help notice you used the term "whatever" rather than ""whomever" they want.
Dehumanizing the other (in this case,you are dehumanizing gays) is the mark of a would be dictator.
Click to expand...

You're engaging in emotional reasoning again. If marriage is a Civil Right, who are you to judge and deny a person whatever they want to marry? People can have all kinds of emotional reasoning and even economical ones if the perception of marriage is changed. Single people can form group marriages to take advantage of the tax credits, ect. There's a pandoras box of potential combinations once the definition of marriage is changed from man + woman to man +? or woman + ?. I understand that people like you scream and kick the floor when this is brought up, but that is an emotional reaction. Not a logical one, hence not my problem.

Are you even married?
There's way more emotions involved in marriage than there is logic.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
 
Somerville said:
Lots of people have debunked the Regnerus and Schumm "studies"
Click to expand...

Who & on what grounds ... other than "I don't like the findings we've got to say something".

Wait ... are you referring to Think Progress as one of "lots of people"?
Tell ya what ... just list who they are ... ya don't even have to provide the links.

There is absolutely no chance those 2 studies suffer from any flaws that other studies of SSM suffer from. None.
 
bubbabgone said:
Yes you can.
Click to expand...

Nope public policy doesn't allow contractual prenups dealing with child support, and rarely with spousal support (except for certain specific situations).

But keep pretending. It's where you're at.
 
Bronson said:
...
Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you Bronson.
You are incredibly patient.
Have you noticed that the most insistent people you run across are the ones who have taken a position on something that didn't even occur to them until it became leftist de rigueur?
Now you can't shake 'em from it.
Happens time and again.
 
head of joaquin said:
Nope public policy doesn't allow contractual prenups dealing with child support, and rarely with spousal support (except for certain specific situations).

But keep pretending. It's where you're at.
Click to expand...

Pre-nup? Who said pre-nup? We were talking no-nup. Sounds like you're trying to wiggle out.
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
 
winston53660 said:
I beg to differ

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Click to expand...

All of those cases can be used to argue for close relation marriage, plural marriages, and multiple marriages since it involves telling the State to stay out of the marriage contract.
 
winston53660 said:
I beg to differ

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Click to expand...


Nothing listed here even hints at giving one sexual interest group over another the right to CHANGE the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

In every case you cite, they didn't need to explain to rational thinking individuals that marriage meant anything other than man + woman. It wasn't a concept that needed to be explained. Equal treatment to an institution is one thing, demanding access to that institution and demanding the institution changes the way it does things to accommodate your demands is an entirely different matter. If I wanted to join an all female fitness club as a man do I have a right to do that?
 
bubbabgone said:
Who & on what grounds ... other than "I don't like the findings we've got to say something".

Wait ... are you referring to Think Progress as one of "lots of people"?
Tell ya what ... just list who they are ... ya don't even have to provide the links.

There is absolutely no chance those 2 studies suffer from any flaws that other studies of SSM suffer from. None.
Click to expand...

for some reason, people working in the field disagree with your assertion

Regnerus admits he didn't follow standard procedures in labeling the parents
CL: The journal that published your study is going to run a response from you in the near future to all your critics. If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently?

MR: I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them. My only hope for the study going in was to let the data say what it was going to say. I knew I’d make some friends and some enemies with the study — I just didn’t know who they were going to be.
Click to expand...
Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.
<snip>
If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all.
Click to expand...

for more on the Regnerus paper, go here. You will see a paper by Schumm which attempts to provide cover for Regnerus' failures

Link to one study concerning the Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
More than two decades of research has failed
to reveal important differences in the adjustment or de-
velopment of children or adolescents reared by same-sex
couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples.
Results of the research suggest that qualities of family re-
lationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes
than is parental sexual orientation
Click to expand...

link to an American Sociological Assn article (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? It's complex and not easy to pull a quote from. I thought it was a relatively balanced synopsis of the studies that were performed in the 1990s - article was published in 2001. The authors note that many of the "pro-gay" studies are carried out by researchers with positive views on gays and lesbians but they found even more bias in those "anti-gay parent" researchers. Generally, studies show little in the way of negative effects on the children with same-sex parents, the largest problem being homophobic bullying inflicted by fellow students.

The recent Prop 8 presentation before the SCOTUS had among many amicus briefs, one from the American Sociological Assn. that stated research has found Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being
 
Somerville said:
for some reason, people working in the field disagree with your assertion

Regnerus admits he didn't follow standard procedures in labeling the parents



for more on the Regnerus paper, go here. You will see a paper by Schumm which attempts to provide cover for Regnerus' failures

Link to one study concerning the Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
Click to expand...


link to an American Sociological Assn article
Click to expand...
(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? It's complex and not easy to pull a quote from. I thought it was a relatively balanced synopsis of the studies that were performed in the 1990s - article was published in 2001. The authors note that many of the "pro-gay" studies are carried out by researchers with positive views on gays and lesbians but they found even more bias in those "anti-gay parent" researchers. Generally, studies show little in the way of negative effects on the children with same-sex parents, the largest problem being homophobic bullying inflicted by fellow students.

The recent Prop 8 presentation before the SCOTUS had among many amicus briefs, one from the
American Sociological Assn. that stated research has found Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being[/
Click to expand...
URL]
Click to expand...


That's quite incredible. It's like, beyond what you quoted, you didn't even read what you posted a link to. He didn't reject his findings and he specified up front how he got his participants and who they were.

But at least you did point out the biases of the pro-gay studies ... some of which actually broadcast requests for participants in leftist publications.

As for the findings put forward in ASA's amicus brief, I'd expect nothing less from that organization. How much do you know about them?

As for this study "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents" ... the author of the study haas a long history of promoting homosexual causes, was in a lesbian relationship and is raising children, the sample in the study was very small, she has a history of making up numbers, and much more ... in short that thing was the poster child of flawed research.

Serious question ... did you know that before posting it as a serious work?
 
Samhain said:
All of those cases can be used to argue for close relation marriage, plural marriages, and multiple marriages since it involves telling the State to stay out of the marriage contract.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, no. Since marriage is a civil right(this is simple reality based on Supreme Court rulings...you can disagree with whether it should be, but legally it is) protected by the 14th amendment, that means that denying marriage to some one is subject to Judicial Review at some level. In that way, and only in that way, is your statement kinda true. Past that, to the actual legal arguments used, they are quite different.

As of right now, we do not know what level of review(there are three levels) would apply to SSM, and legal scholars are split. Most likely SSM and close relation marriage and plural/multiple marriages would all be subject to Rational basis review, with SSM possible being Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny, the others unlikely to raise to that level. Even assuming SSM falls under only Rational Basis review, that still means the state has to show that a ban on SSM(or the other types of marriage you mention) has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. SSM bans are unlikely to pass such scrutiny, as there is zero evidence of any harm caused by SSM, and evidence of benefit with SSM. This is not the case with plural/multiple marriages, which best evidence suggests is not a good environment for raising children, and I really do not know that arguments involving close relations marriage as I have never looked into it.

In other words, the arguments as to the governments interest in banning different types of marriage is different, so saying that SSM leads to other types of marriage, or that the arguments are the same is simply false.
 
I too believe that same sex parenting will not affect the child, but maybe not if they will take good care of them.
 
bubbabgone said:
Egads ... you debunked & destroyed 2 independent studies? ... you must really be good.
Click to expand...

Or they must be really bad, which, of course, they were.
 
Cephus said:
Or they must be really bad, which, of course, they were.
Click to expand...
Then will you explain what was wrong with those 2 studies that set them apart from studies you believe to be relaible?
Before you attempt a reply, see post #1014 because you'll need to make sure whatever study you cite doesn't suffer from those problems. I haven't seen one that doesn't ... but then again, you have to actually check.
 
bubbabgone said:
Then will you explain what was wrong with those 2 studies that set them apart from studies you believe to be relaible?
Before you attempt a reply, see post #1014 because you'll need to make sure whatever study you cite doesn't suffer from those problems. I haven't seen one that doesn't ... but then again, you have to actually check.
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
That's quite incredible. It's like, beyond what you quoted, you didn't even read what you posted a link to. He didn't reject his findings and he specified up front how he got his participants and who they were.

But at least you did point out the biases of the pro-gay studies ... some of which actually broadcast requests for participants in leftist publications.

As for the findings put forward in ASA's amicus brief, I'd expect nothing less from that organization. How much do you know about them?

As for this study "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents" ... the author of the study haas a long history of promoting homosexual causes, was in a lesbian relationship and is raising children, the sample in the study was very small, she has a history of making up numbers, and much more ... in short that thing was the poster child of flawed research.

Serious question ... did you know that before posting it as a serious work?
Click to expand...


Well duh . . . no one expected Regnerus to reject his own work, no matter how bad it was. Just as obvious that you haven't read any of the criticisms laid against Regnerus. The strongest one is the way he labeled the parents in his 'study' - basically labeling a person as gay or lesbian if they had ever had sex with a same gender partner. He did not include very many families with long term stable relationships - the very type of opposite sex couples the was using as comparison. The study was paid for by a group that is openly anti-gay, the Witherspoon Institute. After months of fighting against FOIA requests for documentation, the Univ of Texas has released pages of documents on the study

The Schumm 'study' was not even an actual study, rather it was Mr Schumm taking words from twelve books written about gay parenting and in many cases blatantly misrepresenting what was to be found in the books.

ONE study, the one you criticise because the author is a lesbian, is just that - ONE paper out of many that go back to the 1970s. When looking at lots of academic papers and finding some that show bias, one should not automatically assume that ALL of the studies were poorly done. However, as so many on the right are only capable of binary thinking, that does seem to be a standard response. "One bad - ALL bad!"

So because Regnerus and Schumm are quite outspoken in their 'hatred' of the gays, one should not automatically assume their work is bad - but when the vast majority of experts in the field make negative statements - well . . . then maybe the non-experts should accept the knowledge
 
Somerville said:
Well duh . . . no one expected Regnerus to reject his own work, no matter how bad it was. Just as obvious that you haven't read any of the criticisms laid against Regnerus. The strongest one is the way he labeled the parents in his 'study' -
basically labeling a person as gay or lesbian if they had ever had sex with a same gender partner.
Click to expand...
He did not include very many families with long term stable relationships - the very type of opposite sex couples the was using as comparison. The study was paid for by a group that is openly anti-gay, the Witherspoon Institute. After months of fighting against FOIA requests for documentation, the Univ of Texas has released pages of documents on the study

The Schumm 'study' was not even an actual study, rather it was Mr Schumm taking words from twelve books written about gay parenting and in many cases blatantly misrepresenting what was to be found in the books.

ONE study, the one you criticise because the author is a lesbian, is just that
Click to expand...
- ONE paper out of many that go back to the 1970s. When looking at lots of academic papers and finding some that show bias, one should not automatically assume that ALL of the studies were poorly done. However, as so many on the right are only capable of binary thinking, that does seem to be a standard response. "One bad - ALL bad!"

So because Regnerus and Schumm are quite outspoken in their 'hatred' of the gays one should not automatically assume their work is bad - but when the vast majority of experts in the field make negative statements - well . . . then maybe the non-experts should accept the knowledge,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Regnerus was up front about his sample. Your cited studies were not.
You didn't answer my question ... were you aware of the flaws in the study you cited before you cited it without noting the flaws? Let's have a couple good ones.
I didn't understand that last sentence at all. Did you leave out a word or two somewhere?
 
bubbabgone said:
Regnerus was up front about his sample. Your cited studies were not.
You didn't answer my question ... were you aware of the flaws in the study you cited before you cited it without noting the flaws? Let's have a couple good ones.
I didn't understand that last sentence at all. Did you leave out a word or two somewhere?
Click to expand...

Given the truism that what passes for curiousity in this civilization is the idiotic inquiry into "Why isn't everyone exactly the same?", you don't need research or surveys. Just ask the same dullminded question "How come everybody isn't exactly the same?"................
 
The only thing that irritates me is when lesbian or gay couples say stuff like, "We are going to raise little lesbian girls together." As if the kid doesnt have a choice and will naturally pick this. Why would 2 gay people want their kid to be the same sexuality as them or why would it matter to a parent in any way? Are they planning on having sex with the kid?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
The only thing that irritates me is when lesbian or gay couples say stuff like, "We are going to raise little lesbian girls together." As if the kid doesnt have a choice and will naturally pick this. Why would 2 gay people want their kid to be the same sexuality as them or why would it matter to a parent in any way? Are they planning on having sex with the kid?
Click to expand...

Nah, that's what Catholic Priests are for.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
The only thing that irritates me is when lesbian or gay couples say stuff like, "We are going to raise little lesbian girls together." As if the kid doesnt have a choice and will naturally pick this. Why would 2 gay people want their kid to be the same sexuality as them or why would it matter to a parent in any way? Are they planning on having sex with the kid?
Click to expand...

Over the years I have known approximately 12 gay couples who have chosen to have children together, and none of them have ever said anything like this.

have you met some who have?

if so, I would put them in the same category as beauty pageant moms ..... having children as a vehicle to live out their own unfulfilled dreams ... which is a pretty unhealthy reason to have a child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom