• 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

Gardener said:
or people.

Many are quite steadfast in their resistance to all attempts thereof.
Click to expand...
I've noticed trolls and moles seem to do best in the dark, along with worms, possums.....
 
bubbabgone said:
Ya'd think 3 people with well over 50,000 comments total would be able to sense they've jumped on the bandwagon without much consideration for what it might mean.

Regnerus Study
Click to expand...

Some one else already posted it. Some one else already debunked it:shrug:
 
TheNextEra said:
Thanks Gardener, it seemed fishy from the start.
Click to expand...

You guys are funny.
And as predictable as expected.
But at least somebody actually tried to find the answer for themselves ... and then went to Think Progress to find out what they should think about it.
Too funny.
 
bubbabgone said:
heh heh you don't accept the study but boy Think Progress really got the juices going, huh.
read the study.
Click to expand...


Did YOU actually read the tink Progress article, or did you just gloss through. Here since you don't want to read, this is Mark Regnerus's own words:

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.
Click to expand...
 
winston53660 said:
The are quoting the author of the study.
Click to expand...

If you read the author's study itself he admits (as I did early on) that the sample groups for ANY SSM study is just not large enough. He used what he could and avoided some problems that earlier studies didn't try to avoid ... and they were skewed even within itself.
 
TheNextEra said:
Did YOU actually read the tink Progress article, or did you just gloss through. Here since you don't want to read, this is Mark Regnerus's own words:
Click to expand...
Um ... yes, I read it ... he said that within his own study. I didn't need TP to tell me.
But at least you now have TP to comfort you ... just as someone predicted on this thread long ago.
Now ... did you read the study?
 
TheNextEra said:
Try reading what I said again, I didn't claim thinking homosexuality is a sin is being racist.

I made the point saying that you wouldn't be arrested for thinking homosexuality is a sin.

As to your last statement of gay marriage not being a civil right, that is your opinion and an opinion that the SCOTUS might have ruled against you on. We will find out in the next couple of months.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right

If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? Or woman + ?, then every other sexual interest group that wants to change it gets the right too. Not everyone gets what they want.
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right

If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? Or woman + ?, then every other sexual interest group that wants to change it gets the right too. Not everyone gets what they want.
Click to expand...

Did you stomp your feet as you were typing that too?

Sorry, but your OPINION doesn't mean much to me. If the SCOTUS rules otherwise you and the other anti-SSM will be out of luck and pouting.
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right

If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? Or woman + ?, then every other sexual interest group that wants to change it gets the right too. Not everyone gets what they want.
Click to expand...

1-One of the first (and one of the most important) steps one needs to do to even get married is to apply for a license to do so by the State.
2-Whether anyone likes it or not, any special interest group has the right to TRY to have a law changed.Does not necessarily mean they can automatically succeed.
It seems to me that quite a number of the Anti-SSM Crowd wants to prevent groups from even trying.
That's Un-American.
 
bubbabgone said:
Um ... yes, I read it ... he said that within his own study. I didn't need TP to tell me.
But at least you now have TP to comfort you ... just as someone predicted on this thread long ago.
Now ... did you read the study?
Click to expand...

I love how you have to resort to insults when your studies don't hold weight. I said I would look at it later and I will. I am interested in how the questions were presented to the people or if it was anonymous as well as the sample along with the reasoning behind it. I am hoping the sudy presents those answers. If not, well, the study is flawed and lacks even those basic answers. Again, I am hoping the answers are there.

What I find lacking about this whole thing is that SSM has NOTHING to do with raising children since gays can ALREADY raise children legally without marriage even being in the equation. So marriage is not required for parenting.
 
940 posts so far explaining why a chicken is a duck.
 
TheNextEra said:
Did you stomp your feet as you were typing that too?

Sorry, but your OPINION doesn't mean much to me. If the SCOTUS rules otherwise you and the other anti-SSM will be out of luck and pouting.
Click to expand...

If marriage is a Civil Right who would you exclude? Marriage has always meant man + woman. Why would only gays get the special civil right to change the definition to fit what they want, and not anyone else? 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?

I understand you want to try and to use ad hominem attacks, but you're dodging

Gay Marriage is not a civil right

Verthaine said:
1-One of the first (and one of the most important) steps one needs to do to even get married is to apply for a license to do so by the State.
2-Whether anyone likes it or not, any special interest group has the right to TRY to have a law changed.Does not necessarily mean they can automatically succeed.
It seems to me that quite a number of the Anti-SSM Crowd wants to prevent groups from even trying.
That's Un-American.
Click to expand...

Do you believe Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
 
TheNextEra said:
I love how you have to resort to insults when your studies don't hold weight. I said I would look at it later and I will. I am interested in how the questions were presented to the people or if it was anonymous as well as the sample along with the reasoning behind it. I am hoping the sudy presents those answers. If not, well, the study is flawed and lacks even those basic answers. Again, I am hoping the answers are there.

What I find lacking about this whole thing is that SSM has NOTHING to do with raising children since gays can ALREADY raise children legally without marriage even being in the equation. So marriage is not required for parenting.
Click to expand...

I agree, and have for quite some time. It wasn't always that way, in fact I once thought that gays should never be allowed to raise children, but a great Mom or Dad is just that, great! Loving parents whether gay or not is and should be the only concern for people of conscience. Given that, the purpose of Scalia's question was two fold. It was to illustrate that the science of gay parenting isn't concerned with whether gays can raise well adjusted children, it is to determine whether there is a causal link to the immutable question on homosexuality. That is to ask the question: If gays raising children has an impact on the adult sexual orientation of their offspring? If it does, and (if) the differences are demonstrably repeatable, and wide compared to the national normative sample, then it raises doubt as to the primal cause of homosexuality itself. Two, Scalia, in my opinion was indicating that the science on this discussion is anything but settled, and that bringing up the question and the true nature of these studies in and of themselves was an important factor to consider when performing an objective evaluation.

It should be noted that in a true objective analysis, it bears mention that a child raised by gay parents, and growing up "gay" is not necessarily indicative of his or her parents sexual orientation, per say, although important correlations can be made, and they would themselves be subject to criticism, however, it does indicate a parallel worthy of more research. Secondly, pro SSM proponents would say that even if true, being gay is not harmful to the child anyway, and even if they did, it doesn't matter to the overall question, but it needs to be pointed out that this is a type of double talk, or what I call word-speak. In one sense, the gay community and their social scientists supporters are all in on the question of gay parenting and whether it has any ill effects, but on the hand, hedge their bets that homosexuality is a measurable ill effect. That to me is not honest science in that, if one were to accept the premise that homosexuality is not in and of itself harmful, it does beg the question if one were to frame the question in a more appropriate manner. That is, if one can be turned gay by their childhood experiences, what are they being turned gay from? The answer, at least to me is that they would otherwise be heterosexual, and then the question is, does society view this as a possible disservice to a child? My gut tells me that I would be horrified to learn that anything I did, or subjected my child to were to somehow cause them to form an adult homosexual orientation, if it would otherwise have been preventable.


Tim-
 
Bronson said:
Do you believe Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Click to expand...

If *ANY* marriage is a civil right then yes, gay marriage is a civil right.
 
TheNextEra said:
I love how you have to resort to insults
Click to expand...
when your studies don't hold weight. I said I would look at it later and I will. I am interested in how the questions were presented to the people or if it was anonymous as well as the sample along with the reasoning behind it. I am hoping the sudy presents those answers. If not, well, the study is flawed and lacks even those basic answers. Again, I am hoping the answers are there.

What I find lacking about this whole thing is that SSM has NOTHING to do with raising children since gays can ALREADY raise children legally without marriage even being in the equation. So marriage is not required for parenting
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



Insults are not intended. Sorry.
But it has to be mentioned that the reactions - and I'm not singling you out - are exactly what I was predicting.
Looks like people have gotten themselves to the point that they will just not accept the possibility the SSM is NOT a good thing to endorse for a variety of reasons.

The battle lines are being drawn ... and it's intentional ... for political reasons and I'm sorry to say
  1. there are too many people needing to pat themselves on the back to consider what they're really endorsing,
  2. they're being manipulated.



As for the 2nd point, if the findings are accurate for marriage they would be for all SS adoption.

I trust you saw the second source I posted?
 
bubbabgone said:
That's kinda the point. Yet it didn't appear to bother the SSM proponents so I was trying to work with them on their level.

But anyway ... the data is there ... how about if I tell you that 61% of children of lesbian mothers & 71% of children of gay fathers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual" compared to 90% of children from traditional parents.
So is it nature or nurture?
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
61% of children of lesbian mothers & 71% of children of gay fathers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual" compared to 90% of children from traditional parents.
So is it nature or nurture?
Is it evidence?
Click to expand...

1) Source?
2) If true, so what? being gay is not in and of itself a negative thing.
 
bubbabgone said:
This is laughably predictable.
Does the source really matter to you at all?
Are you prepared to accept any data that doesn't conform to the current cause celebre?
Click to expand...

Of course it matters. Without a source, it is a meaningless claim.
 
bubbabgone said:
Ya'd think 3 people with well over 50,000 comments total would be able to sense they've jumped on the bandwagon without much consideration for what it might mean.

Regnerus Study
Click to expand...

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.
 
bubbabgone said:
If you read the author's study itself he admits (as I did early on) that the sample groups for ANY SSM study is just not large enough. He used what he could and avoided some problems that earlier studies didn't try to avoid ... and they were skewed even within itself.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He claims that. He does not admit it. It is not entirely true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom