• 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!

'Gay' columnist blasts same-sex marriage

mac said:
Well, if it were deemed universally socially acceptable now, what's all the fuss about?
Click to expand...

Interracial marriage is still not universally socially acceptable in this country....what was that fuss all about? Is interracial marriage immoral?

The disgustingly ignorant people protesting Cheerios for using a bi-racial family in their commercial is a clear indication that it's not universal.
 
Lursa said:
Interracial marriage is still not universally socially acceptable in this country....what was that fuss all about? Is interracial marriage immoral?

The disgustingly ignorant people protesting Cheerios for using a bi-racial family in their commercial is a clear indication that it's not universal.
Click to expand...

Looks like you've missed the point entirely.
 
mac said:
Looks like you've missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm, interracial marriage had to be imposed on a state (Virginia), despite any criteria of so-called 'social' acceptance.

Are you suggesting that SSM being legal should be completely based on public opinion?
 
Lursa said:
Mmmmm, interracial marriage had to be imposed on a state (Virginia), despite any criteria of so-called 'social' acceptance.

Are you suggesting that SSM being legal should be completely based on public opinion?
Click to expand...

The segment of the conversation you interjected in had nothing to do with what should or should not be.
 
zimmer said:
Finally some sanity.
Click to expand...

Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage on Canada, I've seen whole-page advertisements in newspapers from Homosexuals who urged to protect the traditional definition of marriage. A lot of gays support the traditional marriage - it's only the few activists , and most likely a lot of them are not even gay, that pushed for the change in definition.

It is simply anti-religion sentiments that's propelled it.
 
mac said:
Well, if it were deemed universally socially acceptable now, what's all the fuss about?
Click to expand...

Universally? No. But the attitudes had to change astronomically for us to get to this point. That is why the institution was redefined long ago by birth control. Any arguments against SSM fell apart with the use of contraception by married couples.
 
CriticalThought said:
Universally? No. But the attitudes had to change astronomically for us to get to this point. That is why the institution was redefined long ago by birth control. Any arguments against SSM fell apart with the use of contraception by married couples.
Click to expand...

Well, I foresee the acceptance, or at least tolerance of, SSM growing over time. But, to say that state has already been reached is just wishful thinking and not something social conservatives have backwards.
 
tosca1 said:
Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage on Canada, I've seen whole-page advertisements in newspapers from Homosexuals who urged to protect the traditional definition of marriage. A lot of gays support the traditional marriage - it's only the few activists , and most likely a lot of them are not even gay, that pushed for the change in definition.

It is simply anti-religion sentiments that's propelled it.
Click to expand...

Yep... It's trying to destroy established institutions.
 
zimmer said:
Yep... It's trying to destroy established institutions.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that all 'established institutions' are good? Morally, Constitutionally, socially?

Cuz there's a few tired examples that I would challenge that with, like slavery and women's rights. Even polygamy.....still common in other countries and once, here.

When it is about 'discrimination' and denying the part where "All men are created equal,' then 'established institutions' should go the way of the dinosaurs IMO.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In the study, he only considers "children" who still live at home between the ages of 17-22. This does not take into consideration children who may be living independently or children living at college. There is no data for children of gay or straight parents NOT living at home. Further, how long were the children living in the family situation in which the study coded them? If a child, at 18, lived with gay parents... but lived with straight parents or a single parent for 17 years, they'd be coded as the child of gay parents. This causes significant problems with the results.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are children missing, but this is the study with the largest sample size and most controlled variables. I see no way that the other studies are superior. If you want to look at a certain subset of gay parents, say those who raise children from childhood, go ahead and do it, but it's much rarer than widely believed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. When conducting these kinds of studies, randomization is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

Thus the larger the sample size the better.

This is the absolute most appropriate way to garner the information needed. This is not a confound but a strength.
Click to expand...

That's garbage. If you don't ask the adults then you have no idea how the kids actually turn out.

Several of the studies use objective testing to attain the results. This is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Are you going to say that this was not objective and that the opinion of the children doesn't matter?

When conducting studies like these, this kind of total control is pretty much impossible. The studies quoted do as well as possible.
Click to expand...

Not as well as this study.

As soon as I saw the link, I knew it was the study by Mark Regnerus. That study has been completely discredited as "junk" by the ASA for poor methodology and partiality. There are so many problems with the study, it's hard to know where to begin. ONE of the major methodological flaws is that Regnerus coded a parent as a single sex parent if they had EVER had a single sex relationship, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with parenting. Next, the study did not consider whether the child had actually LIVED with the parent who had the single sex relationship... at the time of the relationship or ever. Further, the study considers the CHILD'S perception of whether or not the parent had a same-sex relationship, not the parent's. This is different than every other study performed and is based on a possible incomplete recollection. Finally, the study tends to focus on adult outcomes which may have been caused by other factors. THIS is why, in contrast to what you said, asking question about children during CHILDHOOD is the appropriate and accurate way to measure success, as this measure limits potential confounds. Regnerus himself admitted in later interviews that this coding may not have had anything to do with whether or not those parents were gay. So, your conclusions based on Regnerus's study are as irrelevant as his study is. VERY poor research on this issue, phattonez.

For more information, here are two links that discuss the discrediting:

Mark Regnerus Admits His 'Family Structures' Study Wasn't About Gay Parenting | ThinkProgress

And here is the ASA brief that shows how the study is junk. Scroll to page 16:

http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Nice try, but once again, you posted a study that has no credibility because of major methodological flaws.

Oh, and btw... when talking about biased researchers, Regnerus is a conservative evangelical Christian who received $700,000 to fund his study from the Witherspoon Institute... a conservative think tank opposed to SSM.
Click to expand...

No CC, this is the best research on the issue, and you instead choose to follow studies that throw out parents and have tiny sample sizes.

https://chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107/

Those who are attacking Regnerus cannot admit their true political motives, so their strategy has been to discredit him for conducting "bad science." That is devious. His article is not perfect—no article ever is. But it is no scientifically worse than what is routinely published in sociology journals. Without a doubt, had Regnerus published different findings with the same methodology, nobody would have batted a methodological eye. Furthermore, none of his critics raised methodological concerns about earlier research on the same topic that had greater limitations, which are discussed in detail in the Regnerus article. Apparently, weak research that comes to the "right" conclusions is more acceptable than stronger studies that offer heretical results.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, you didn't. What you did was failed to point out flaws in the studies, actually MADE up one flaw that isn't accurate, and posted a study that is so flawed that the governing body (The ASA) that the researcher is part of, condemned the study as "junk". EVEN THE RESEARCHER admitted that his study didn't measure what he claimed.
Click to expand...

I pointed out plenty of flaws, you just ignored them because you liked the conclusions of the other studies.

What's funny is that you didn't do anything that you attempted. You didn't point out major flaws in the studies that I posted... and btw... those were the studies that I have posted here at DP for years... and the study that YOU posted was one that was completely discredited. Now, my guess is that you are going to google other studies that you believe prove your position, but have already been discredited, too. There are a couple of famous ones. Let's see if you hit them.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that these other papers are objectively worse and not nearly as vilified as the Regnerus study. How telling.
 
Hatuey said:
You're taking it rather personal. I never stated you weren't a real libertarian. I implied your view on this is not libertarian. It isn't. Abortion and MSAs don't even compare as both are advocated against/for on a societal wide scale. You seem to want to bar adoption/child bearing for gays and gays alone. Ignoring the fact that a) they make up only 3% of the population and it has been proven over and over again that they pose no threat to children and b) the standards you want to us use to bar child bearing or adoption for gays could easily be applied to some racial minorities (blacks & natives), junkies, musicians, and basically anyone between the ages of 19-25 in a metropolitan area. Would you support barring any of those groups from bearing children? Obviously not. You're a libertarian.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where I supposedly stated that the state should bar gays from adopting children. I'm against it, to be sure, but please find where I said that the state should actively ban it.
 
Dezaad said:
Which is irrelevant, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up.
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant, because that is the picture that gay activists try to paint for us.

No it hasn't always been about children. I just explained how it is obvious that it isn't and hasn't been, and you just didn't even address those points.
Click to expand...

Only for the past about 50 years has it not been about children and rather simply mutual attraction.
 
CriticalThought said:
The purist libertarian view on marriage is the government needs to get out of it entirely because the institution discriminates against single people.
Click to expand...

That is my position, but not because it discriminates, but rather that there is no need for it.
 
Lursa said:
What do single-parent homes have to do with gay *marriage* or even gay couples with kids? Those are two parent families. You shouldnt be extending that study to gay marriage....a single gay mother or father....would their stats be any different? *That* would be a relevant study if we were discussing single-parent homes.
Click to expand...

This happens often with gay parenting, apparently.

Yuh, I know but you still dont seem to understand what 'biological' means. And that's what I commented on, lolol. How often do you see single parent homes where that parent is not the biological parent of the kid? *sigh* I really did have to spell that out, didnt I?
Click to expand...

And the children from this scenario do terribly. Children are best served by their biological parentS, not parent.
 
spud_meister said:
Not entirely facetiously. Divorce represents a far larger threat to the "traditional" marriage than gays ever could, and is proven to harm both children specifically, and society as a whole. If anti-gay marriage folks were truly concerned about marriage, they would be seeking the repeal of no-fault divorce laws rather than stopping the legalisation of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Rather than? As if we should ignore the issues with gay "marriage"? Nonsense.
 
phattonez said:
Rather than? As if we should ignore the issues with gay "marriage"? Nonsense.
Click to expand...

You cannot make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't apply more strongly to divorce. Whether you're arguing harm against kids or society, biblical prohibition or immorality, it applies far more to divorce than gay marriage.

Even if gay marriage was legalised, and proven to be harmful, it could not match the harm caused by divorce on sheer scale.
 
spud_meister said:
You cannot make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't apply more strongly to divorce. Whether you're arguing harm against kids or society, biblical prohibition or immorality, it applies far more to divorce than gay marriage.

Even if gay marriage was legalised, and proven to be harmful, it could not match the harm caused by divorce on sheer scale.
Click to expand...

To me, both problems stem from confusion about the very nature of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom