• 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!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

You do understand that this is a completely false statement, proven false by data. But since I have not seen you produce one shred of substantiation for your position, let's see some. Please provide research/data/links demonstrating that gay couples are incapable of bringing up a balanced individual.

And, for those of you who have seen me debate this topic before...you know what's coming next. ;)

I will tell you what will come next: you will make a monumental attempt to turn on your brain power while simultaneously accessing through your computer (going to the library is an alternative) the data on the psychological damage to the child of one-sex parent upbringing; and if you feel up for it, you can even venture into realm of gay parents upbringing, but due to politically correct nazi censorship you will have to look for that information mostly outside of languages of countries affected by cancer of political correctness.

Good luck, captain. Don't give up easy.
 
Here let me end this debate it really doesn't matter if a Gay Couple can or can't raise a child what this vote came down to was the Elected officials in the State of Maine decide to enacted a Law with-out the Citz. of Maine's imput we the Citz said woh not so fast folks. Got it put onto the Ballet and we the Citz of Maine used OUR 1ST ADM. RIGHTS AND VOTED.

And regardless of whether I agree with that vote or not, you are correct. What occurred fits in with how government in this country works. Checks and balances.
 
I will tell you what will come next: you will make a monumental attempt to turn on your brain power while simultaneously accessing through your computer (going to the library is an alternative) the data on the psychological damage to the child of one-sex parent upbringing; and if you feel up for it, you can even venture into realm of gay parents upbringing, but due to politically correct nazi censorship you will have to look for that information mostly outside of languages of countries affected by cancer of political correctness.

Good luck, captain. Don't give up easy.

No, what will happen is that I will shred your position with tons of information from legitimate sources, demonstrating that your position is a ridiculous fallacy, presented by those who can only see their closed-minded little agenda. Then you will cry and whine and demonstrate that I am correct or you will present data that is invalid, methodologically poorly constructed, or from some religious fundamentalist website that produced opinion, not data. You have nothing. But please...post your links of substantiation...if you can. But, you know...and I know...you've got nothing.

Come on, Elena. Show us there is more to you then pompous statements vainly searching for a relevant position.
 
I agree with that stance, but don't believe there's any legitimate consensus in the empirical literature that you speak of, and there is available research would seem to support the premise that an environment with homosexual parents is inferior to an environment with heterosexual parents. For example, we have Cameron's Gay fathers' effects on children: a review.

Extrapolating results from studies of lesbians' children to gays' children and assertions of "no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents" are questioned. A review of 9 studies gave evidence that gays' children were (a) more apt to adopt homosexual interests and activities, (b) more apt to report sexual confusion, (c) more apt to be socially disturbed, (d) more apt to abuse substances, (e) less apt to get married, (f) more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships, (g) less religious and more unconventionally religious, (h) more apt to have emotional difficulties, (i) more frequently exposed to parental molestation, and (j) prone to more frequent sexual acting out.

And we can consult Schumm's Re-evaluation of the "no differences" hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting as assessed in eight early (1979-1986) and four later (1997-1998) dissertations:

Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects.

Beyond that, I would suggest that earlier research supported these findings to some extent also, but that this was suppressed by politically motivated interests. For example, we can refer to Stacey and Biblarz's [How] does the sexual orientation of parents matter?:

Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. The analysis here challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes how heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. The authors discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next they explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions.

That said, it's still a difficult area and we also must consider whether active discrimination against these parenting arrangements may have been the primary cause of the problems observed rather than inherent deficiencies. My own ideological position is in conflict with the premise that homosexual parenting is more harmful and I'd greatly appreciate identification of specific methodological deficiencies or errors in the research presented or provision of clearly superior empirical evidence, as with the superiority of Hotz et al.'s natural experiment over cross-sectional analysis, for example. :)
 
And regardless of whether I agree with that vote or not, you are correct. What occurred fits in with how government in this country works. Checks and balances.

Thanks CC it's funny all of my Gay Friends in Maine just don't understand they are all pissed off over the VOTE and I keep telling them why you got what you were screaming for a Vote so it didn't go your way oh well but please stop bitching about it because the Citz. of Maine used their 1st Adm Right . Hell I told one of them lastnight one year ago on Tuesday I didn't get my way on how I voted for the person in the White House but see we all voted so I have no reason to bitch over that part of it so these idiots have no right to bitch over the fact it was voted on.

Everything else in this thread really has nothing to do with the plain and simple truth and that is The Citz. of Maine used their Constitutional Rights and voted. The real discuss should be why wasn't this put on the ballet in the first place.
 
And in any case, the more your society submerges into political correctness, the more it destroys your moral principles and boundaries along with the very fabric of traditional family upbringing -- the core of every society, the sooner your society will destroy itself. Rome fell when its prominent citisens lost their moral compass and destroyed their own families.

When native Brits complain their country is becoming overtaken by foreigners, I say, what do you want? The newcomers from traditional societies hold onto their family values, they support their family members no matter how far removed, they bring up their children with a sense of purpose and responsibility, they install in their kids the idea of respect for the rules and traditions and culture...

While the natives threw out of the window all traditional values, they haven't got a clue about their culture, they have no drive to succeed through study, they make sure their kids fend for themselves as soon as they can legaly be pushed out of their home, and the kids in turn shove their parents into old people's homes as soon as the parents become too old or sick to look after themselves; they grow up with individualistic mindset where anything outside their immediate possesion doesn't matter; and with a thought that norm is what they want at any given time.

Western societies already became an object of derision and a laughing stock among the people of traditional societies.

As I already said, you embrace political correctness -- it's your problem, your funeral.
 
Last edited:
Come on, Elena. Show us there .

Ask your wife to show you.

Am I correct you are not going to start using your brain or do any research yourself? What a surprise!

I'll repeat specially for you:

And in any case, the more your society submerges into political correctness, the more it destroys your moral principles and boundaries along with the very fabric of traditional family upbringing -- the core of every society, the sooner your society will destroy itself. Rome fell when its prominent citisens lost their moral compass and destroyed their own families.

When native Brits complain their country is becoming overtaken by foreigners, I say, what do you want? The newcomers from traditional societies hold onto their family values, they support their family members no matter how far removed, they bring up their children with a sense of purpose and responsibility, they install in their kids the idea of respect for the rules and traditions and culture...

While the natives threw out of the window all traditional values, they haven't got a clue about their culture, they have no drive to succeed through study, they make sure their kids fend for themselves as soon as they can legaly be pushed out of their home, and the kids in turn shove their parents into old people's homes as soon as the parents become too old or sick to look after themselves; they grow up with individualistic mindset where anything outside their immediate possesion doesn't matter; and with a thought that norm is what they want at any given time.

As I already said, you embrace political correctness -- it's your problem, your funeral.
 
I agree with that stance, but don't believe there's any legitimate consensus in the empirical literature that you speak of, and there is available research would seem to support the premise that an environment with homosexual parents is inferior to an environment with heterosexual parents. For example, we have Cameron's Gay fathers' effects on children: a review.



And we can consult Schumm's Re-evaluation of the "no differences" hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting as assessed in eight early (1979-1986) and four later (1997-1998) dissertations:



Beyond that, I would suggest that earlier research supported these findings to some extent also, but that this was suppressed by politically motivated interests. For example, we can refer to Stacey and Biblarz's [How] does the sexual orientation of parents matter?:



That said, it's still a difficult area and we also must consider whether active discrimination against these parenting arrangements may have been the primary cause of the problems observed rather than inherent deficiencies. My own ideological position is in conflict with the premise that homosexual parenting is more harmful and I'd greatly appreciate identification of specific methodological deficiencies or errors in the research presented or provision of clearly superior empirical evidence, as with the superiority of Hotz et al.'s natural experiment over cross-sectional analysis, for example. :)

Interesting, yet inaccurate. Stacey and Biblarz have been taken out of context so often, and used incorrectly towards non-support of the equivalency position, that Stacey has commented on this inaccuracy. Further, the studies that I have read and cited use clear, valid methodology; those that indicate differences do not. Cameron's study, for example not only presents a correlation, not a causastion, but has been debunked several times by other studies. Point one is a great example: "more apt to adopt homosexual interests and activities". Studies DO NOT show that...Cameron takes the findings out of context and re-words them and presents no clear definition of what a "homosexual interest or activiity is"...a pretty subjective concept. What the studies do find is that children of homosexual parents are less likely to be intolerant of homosexual interests and activities. They do NOT find that children of homosexual couples are more likely to be homosexual, which is what Cameron's wording implies. This is dishonest reporting of research, and many of the "anti-" research studies, or those attempting to debunk the "pro" studies are guilty of this.
 
Ask your wife to show you.

Am I correct you are not going to start using your brain or do any research yourself? What a surprise!

I'll repeat specially for you:

And in any case, the more your society submerges into political correctness, the more it destroys your moral principles and boundaries along with the very fabric of traditional family upbringing -- the core of every society, the sooner your society will destroy itself. Rome fell when its prominent citisens lost their moral compass and destroyed their own families.

When native Brits complain their country is becoming overtaken by foreigners, I say, what do you want? The newcomers from traditional societies hold onto their family values, they support their family members no matter how far removed, they bring up their children with a sense of purpose and responsibility, they install in their kids the idea of respect for the rules and traditions and culture...

While the natives threw out of the window all traditional values, they haven't got a clue about their culture, they have no drive to succeed through study, they make sure their kids fend for themselves as soon as they can legaly be pushed out of their home, and the kids in turn shove their parents into old people's homes as soon as the parents become too old or sick to look after themselves; they grow up with individualistic mindset where anything outside their immediate possesion doesn't matter; and with a thought that norm is what they want at any given time.

As I already said, you embrace political correctness -- it's your problem, your funeral.

I've done the research and have plenty to present. But you presented a position...a false one, but a position nonetheless. It is YOUR job to provide substantiation for it...not mine. If you cannot, that's fine. Just admit that you have nothing but pompous words that have no relevant facts to back them, and we can ignore your irrelevant and foolish statements. Of course, if you want to back such erroneous thoughts THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM AND YOUR FUNERAL.
 
No, what will happen is that I will shred your position with tons of information from legitimate sources, demonstrating that your position is a ridiculous fallacy, presented by those who can only see their closed-minded little agenda. Then you will cry and whine and demonstrate that I am correct or you will present data that is invalid, methodologically poorly constructed, or from some religious fundamentalist website that produced opinion, not data. You have nothing. But please...post your links of substantiation...if you can. But, you know...and I know...you've got nothing.

Come on, Elena. Show us there is more to you then pompous statements vainly searching for a relevant position.

When this many people in one thread keep telling Elena that she's incorrect and asking her to please shed light on her positions with evidence to substantiate these positions and yet she continues to claim she is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT and we are all WRONG WRONG WRONG without providing any evidence to substantiate her positions and in a way that only an insecure bully knows how ("You're all a bunch of idiots, and I am omniscient"), something is not right here. That something is Elena.

P.S. What kind of intelligent person says, "It's your funeral"?
 
Last edited:
I've done the research and have plenty to present. But you presented a position...a false one,

Yep! You are right. Traditional family is the thing of the past, now is the time for gay "families", one-parent families, pedophile parties in parliaments, pol dance classes for 10-year-olds, chidren produced in laboratories or cloned. That's progress!

Carry on. The sooner your society commits suicide, the better for the world, I suppose.
 
When this many people in one thread keep telling Elena that she's incorrect and asking her to please shed light on her positions with evidence to substantiate these positions and yet she continues to claim she is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT and we are all WRONG WRONG WRONG without providing any evidence to substantiate her positions and in a way that only an insecure bully knows how ("You're all a bunch of idiots, and I am omniscient"), something is not right here. That something is Elena.

aps...I've dealt with posters like this many times before. They think their pomposity and bullying can get them through. Maybe elsewhere, but if she demonstrates the lack of knowledge that she has, thus far, and the refusal to back up anything, she will be seen as just another poster with a farcical position, posting with trollish behavior. Thus far, that's all she'd done.
 
Interesting, yet inaccurate. Stacey and Biblarz have been taken out of context so often, and used incorrectly towards non-support of the equivalency position

Good thing I didn't do that and only commented on the aspect of allegations of suppression and bias rather than serious empirical opposition to the equivalency position coming from them, then.

Further, the studies that I have read and cited use clear, valid methodology; those that indicate differences do not. Cameron's study

Literature review. Are you planning on offering criticisms of every study in the review?
 
Yep! You are right. Traditional family is the thing of the past, now is the time for gay "families", one-parent families, pedophile parties in parliaments, pol dance classes for 10-year-olds, chidren produced in laboratories or cloned. That's progress!

Carry on. The sooner your society commits suicide, the better for the world, I suppose.

So, you still refuse to present any substantiation for your position. I suppose that means that you have none. Perhaps you should just concede, now, and scurry off.
 
Good thing I didn't do that and only commented on the aspect of allegations of suppression and bias rather than serious empirical opposition to the equivalency position coming from them, then.

Your presentation is consistent with how Stacey and Bilbartz are misused.

Literature review. Are you planning on offering criticisms of every study in the review?

Would you like me to?
 
Warning strong language about british traditions[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBel2cG2v0"]YouTube- Al Murray - Folklore, Oedipus and the Incy Wincy Spider[/ame]
 
Carry on. The sooner your society commits suicide, the better for the world, I suppose.

How old are you? I am incredulous over your constant immature comments. "It's your funeral." What does that mean? If you hate our society so much, why do you care if we commit suicide?

Don't bother responding. I genuinely don't care what you think anymore. I have put you on ignore because I have much better things to do with my time than read your utter immature nonsense.

By the way, to bring this down to your level, I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever to say to me bounces off me and sticks to you. :nahnah:
 
Yep! You are right. Traditional family is the thing of the past, now is the time for gay "families", one-parent families, pedophile parties in parliaments, pol dance classes for 10-year-olds, chidren produced in laboratories or cloned. That's progress!
I love it, and in paticular the pol dances, its a pity the pol is so rare
 
Captain, your whole "Western civilization" can't deal with a bunch of illiterate goat-herders. Cool off, this is the result of your society's demise (and its only the begining) from kids on a street to a president:

YouTube - Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES

YouTube - Again stupid Bush

So, still no substantiation from you in regards to your farcical position. Obviously, you've got nothing, but instead of conceding. you are now starting to troll this thread with off-topic comments. Therefore...

Moderator's Warning:
Cease the trolling and keep to the topic or consequences will ensue.
 
:lamo

I will be watching from the sidelines the agonising of your societies overun by political correctness. Truly, when God wants to punish, he takes away an ability to think: keep marching to a beat of your politically correct slogans.

:2wave:
 
:lamo

I will be watching from the sidelines the agonising of your societies overun by political correctness. Truly, when God wants to punish, he takes away an ability to think: keep marching to a beat of your politically correct slogans.

:2wave:

Moderator's Warning:
You were asked to stop trolling with off topic comments. You are thread banned.
 
we are DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmed:rofl:rofl
 
Moderator's Warning:
OK, let's all get back to the topic.
 
... and suddenly there was peace in the hottest thread on DP. :applaud
 
Back
Top Bottom