• 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

bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to 2010 census data, in the US:

131,729 same-sex married households
514,735 unmarried same-sex households
Thirty-one percent of the married couples and almost 14 percent of the unmarried couples said they were raising children
Nearly 2 million children under age 18 were being raised by at least one gay or lesbian parent

Sample size is not an issue. There are more than enough gays to be able to get valid sized samples.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...ex-marriage-foe-says-latest-research-has-sha/
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you just come out and say that in the first place?
 
Cephus said:
Marriage is a legal contract, anyone or anything that cannot enter into a legal contract is not eligible for marriage.
Click to expand...

... shouldn't that be changed?

Besides ... what goes on between you and that lovely cocker spaniel of yours in your own home is no business of anyone else.
 
bubbabgone said:
... shouldn't that be changed?

Besides ... what goes on between you and that lovely cocker spaniel of yours in your own home is no business of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Why would it be changed? What would be the point? Do you even have a point, or are you just boosting your post count?
 
winston53660 said:
Why didn't you just come out and say that in the first place?
Click to expand...

Same reason you watch all 9 innings.

From the reaction you can see that a lot of it is nimby, a lot of it is the bandwagon effect, and a lot of it is sucked up propaganda.
 
Cephus said:
Why would it be changed? What would be the point? Do you even have a point, or are you just boosting your post count?
Click to expand...
Marriage is certainly YOUR civil right and since your cocker is property, she has no say in the matter. Go for it.
 
Redress said:
According to 2010 census data, in the US:

131,729 same-sex married households
514,735 unmarried same-sex households
Thirty-one percent of the married couples and almost 14 percent of the unmarried couples said they were raising children
Nearly 2 million children under age 18 were being raised by at least one gay or lesbian parent

Sample size is not an issue. There are more than enough gays to be able to get valid sized samples.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...ex-marriage-foe-says-latest-research-has-sha/
Click to expand...

Again ... the point was the difference between random samples vs volunteer samples ... those numbers are all over the place ... they are census ... and they weren'tr the sample data used.
 
Verthaine said:
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.
Click to expand...

So pretty much anything goes

Got it

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

If states want to put it up for a vote for the people to decide, I don't have a problem with that. If gays get the special right to try and change what the definition of marriage is though, then you have to allow all the other different interest groups that want to change the definition have their chance too.

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.
Click to expand...

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It was discrimination based upon race. Not a special sexual interest group trying to change the definition from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. Comparing gay marriage to the real struggle of Blacks is racist and insensitive. Having black skin is not the same thing as being attracted to the same sex.

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.
Click to expand...

See above. It's racist if you compare Gays demanding special rights to the real struggle that blacks have gone through in this country. It's insensitive and demeans the real struggle blacks had to go through to achieve racial equality.

That's your opinion.
Click to expand...

Marriage not a civil right. Marriage isn't in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never would have approved of same sex marriage. It was an alien concept to them.

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.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a Civil Right. It's a Social Contract and an institution with specific social and economic purposes. Not everyone has the right to marry whatever they want. Claiming it's a Civil Right is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
 
bubbabgone said:
Marriage is certainly YOUR civil right and since your cocker is property, she has no say in the matter. Go for it.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Come on back when you rent a clue.
 
Cephus said:
:roll:

Come on back when you rent a clue.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have no justification for excluding your poor little cocker from marital bliss.
Surely it's not for religious reasons or because you consider it unnatural in some way.
So what's the justification?
 
bubbabgone said:
Before I can answer that, what would you consider evidence?
Click to expand...

can you refer to any research that verifies the claims you have made?

edit. I see this issue has been addressed and discussed in some detail.

Redress makes good points.
 
Last edited:
marywollstonecraft said:
can you refer to any research that verifies the claims you have made?

edit. I see this issue has been addressed and discussed in some detail.

Redress makes good points.
Click to expand...

Redress made conflicting points.
Presenting census data to shore bad study sampling isn't a good point.

What we're left with is an effort to be comforted with the unfortunate discovery that the pro-SSM troops have been laboring under the influence of badly flawed "studies" or, worse, being deliberately misled.

I presented 2 studies that suggest SSM is not likely to be benign or even neutral in it's effect on kids.
 
bubbabgone said:
Redress made conflicting points.
Presenting census data to shore bad study sampling isn't a good point.

What we're left with is an effort to be comforted with the unfortunate discovery that the pro-SSM troops have been laboring under the influence of badly flawed "studies" or, worse, being deliberately misled.

I presented 2 studies that suggest SSM is not likely to be benign or even neutral in it's effect on kids.
Click to expand...

You seem to not understand what I have said.
 
Redress said:
You seem to not understand what I have said.
Click to expand...
... you presented census data that purported to show that the universe of homosexuals was pretty big so, implicitly, the sampling was good despite it's self-selection nature.
 
Bronson said:
So pretty much anything goes

Got it
Click to expand...
Your words,not mine.
Bronson said:
If states want to put it up for a vote for the people to decide, I don't have a problem with that. If gays get the special right to try and change what the definition of marriage is though, then you have to allow all the other different interest groups that want to change the definition have their chance too.
Click to expand...
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".
Bronson said:
Interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It was discrimination based upon race.
Click to expand...
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 + ?.
[/quote]

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.

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".

Bronson said:
Comparing gay marriage to the real struggle of Blacks is racist and insensitive.
Click to expand...
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.

Bronson said:
Having black skin is not the same thing as being attracted to the same sex.
Click to expand...
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.

Bronson said:
See above. It's racist if you compare Gays demanding special rights to the real struggle that blacks have gone through in this country.
It's insensitive and demeans the real struggle blacks had to go through to achieve racial equality.
Click to expand...

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

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.


For some reason,I don't think you are a "very liberal" at all.
Bronson said:
Marriage not a civil right.
Click to expand...
Again,that's you opinion.
Civil right's isn't a "black thing" in civil rights.
And maybe it's time we include "marriage"
Bronson said:
Marriage isn't in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It's not prohibited by the Constitution,either.And the Constitution can be changed you know
Bronson said:
The Founding Fathers never would have approved of same sex marriage. It was an alien concept to them.
Click to expand...
But quite a number of them had no problem owning slaves,now did they?

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.

The Founding Fathers were human beings,not Gods we have to worship.
They weren't perfect.
Bronson said:
Marriage is not a Civil Right. It's a Social Contract and an institution with specific social and economic purposes. Not everyone has the right to marry whatever they want
Click to expand...
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.

Bronson said:
Claiming it's a Civil Right is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
Click to expand...
Are you even married?
There's way more emotions involved in marriage than there is logic.
 
bubbabgone said:
The argument you're having with yourself is fun to watch.
Click to expand...

The argument I'm having with you is fun to participate in since you cannot refute it.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no no no. You are mistaken yet again.
Another poster mentioned a study yesterday and I know of a different one that shows something other than the anecdotal evidence you're calling "studies".
Click to expand...

1) The Schumm study that was mentioned is completely methodologically unsound and has been debunked. In fact, we had a discussion here at DP when it first came out. It was completely taken apart. It has no validity.
2) I have not seen any study that reports what you claim that has any methodological validity. Post it. Oh... and if you post anything by Cameron, be prepared to be laughed at.
3) The studies of which I refer are not "anecdotal". I understand that the evidence is stacked against you, making your position invalid, but that doesn't alter facts.

For consistency, your correct answer to the question should have been "What difference does it make. Homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
That wasn't your answer so to be intellectually consistent you have to explain why you see a distinction.
Click to expand...

I never said I saw a distinction. In fact, everything I've posted indicates that I don't. The fact that you are having difficulty seeing this is your problem, not mine.
 
bubbabgone said:
What-if questions are not pointless.
They can point out inconsistencies that may make a person wonder if they've chosen a position for the wrong reason.
And ... in this instance, it was posed as a what-if question to see if it would matter to you or anyone else when you found out it is true, at least statistically.
There may be reasons you wouldn't want to change a certain position even when you are shown that truth, but we need to get past this hurdle first.
Click to expand...

What-if questions ARE pointless if it is shown that they are inconsistent with the real world example of which you are trying to compare. Yours was shown to be inconsistent and therefore invalid. Therefore, your what-if IS pointless.
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. Your study is invalid and dismissed. Your comment "would you accept it" is therefore also dismissed.
 
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...

The Schumm study. Thoroughly discredited and debunked.

In other words, you have NO study that has valid methodology that supports your position. Good to know.
 
bubbabgone said:
Redress made conflicting points.
Presenting census data to shore bad study sampling isn't a good point.

What we're left with is an effort to be comforted with the unfortunate discovery that the pro-SSM troops have been laboring under the influence of badly flawed "studies" or, worse, being deliberately misled.

I presented 2 studies that suggest SSM is not likely to be benign or even neutral in it's effect on kids.
Click to expand...

No. You presented two methodologically unsound and invalid studies that say something about the effects SSM has in kids. And because those studies are methodologically unsound (and therefore invalid) any results they found are meaningless. Now, you can keep posting your faith in those studies, but it makes you look ridiculous... supporting studies with invalid findings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom