- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I think your ignoring the difference between "had changed" and "attempting to change".
Nope. Conservatives tend to get that backward.
I think your ignoring the difference between "had changed" and "attempting to change".
Nope. Conservatives tend to get that backward.
Well, if it were deemed universally socially acceptable now, what's all the fuss about?
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.
Looks like you've missed the point entirely.
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?
Finally some sanity.
Well, if it were deemed universally socially acceptable now, what's all the fuss about?
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.
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.
Yep... It's trying to destroy established institutions.
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.
No. When conducting these kinds of studies, randomization is nearly impossible.
This is the absolute most appropriate way to garner the information needed. This is not a confound but a strength.
Several of the studies use objective testing to attain the results. This is more accurate.
When conducting studies like these, this kind of total control is pretty much impossible. The studies quoted do as well as possible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is irrelevant, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up.
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.
The purist libertarian view on marriage is the government needs to get out of it entirely because the institution discriminates against single people.
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.
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?
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.
Rather than? As if we should ignore the issues with gay "marriage"? Nonsense.
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.
To me, both problems stem from confusion about the very nature of marriage.
What do you believe the purpose of marriage to be?
Mutual enrichment, love, and the bearing and raising of children by both parents.
Do you believe those things should define who is excluded from marrying?