Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is NOT a study. It's an opinion piece full of misrepresentation of actual studies. Tim Dailey's only qualifications are in Theology and he writes books about the Bible. He has a conservative religious extremist anti-gay agenda.
How about something a little more objective from a reputable source like the American Academy of Pediatricians?
Somehow I figured this mantra (or a reasonable facimile thereof...) would be the response. Oh golly gee, the guy writes books about the Bible? Or is a Christian. As if either of these facts means one cannot also be a competent and respected reasearcher or whatever? That alone is no refutation of Dailey's credentials to point out obvious flaws in the studies in question.
Regardless, you bring up a "reputable source" such as the American Association of Pediatricians? Why are their findings any more valid than those of, say, the American College of Pediatricians (of which many members were/still are members of the AAP?).
Here is something from the latter which reaches opposite conclusions:
But of course, I am sure you will tell me the ACPeds are biased as well, right?
And maybe they are, but please don't try and sell that ridiculous bill of goods that studies/organizations which support your position are not equally biased and could not possibly have an agenda of their own. It won't wash. Just because you call them objective doesn't mean they are. In fact, there is a lot of evidence the opposite it true.
Anyway, like I said in posting yesterday, we can trade studies all day long. I appeal less to studies than I do to common sense and nature. And it just defies both to think that a couple of one sex -- all other things being equal -- can possibly raise a baby/child of the other sex without there being some serious problems in that child's development, even with the best of intentions. Certain things two women could not possibly relate to with a boy becoming a man and likewise two men raising a daughter becoming a young woman. Now if that observation is a manifestation of "homophobia" or "ignorance" or whatever, then so be it. I just reply with the time-tested adage that never did nature say one thing and wisdom another. I stand by it along with my opinion on the subject.
Ok, that is all I have to say on the matter. I don't have time to keep after it hourly just because someone else may reply later (usually with the same name-calling and hysteria ). I just wanted to speak my piece to you on it (and I have to say, you seem one of the generally reasonable ones on the topic). And just because I don't reply to anything later written in response does not mean in the least I am convinced I am in error on my thinking and stance. It just means I don't have time to keep it up indefinitely. Everyone have a good day.
Anyway, like I said in posting yesterday, we can trade studies all day long. I appeal less to studies than I do to common sense and nature. And it just defies both to think that a couple of one sex -- all other things being equal -- can possibly raise a baby/child of the other sex without there being some serious problems in that child's development, even with the best of intentions. Certain things two women could not possibly relate to with a boy becoming a man and likewise two men raising a daughter becoming a young woman. Now if that observation is a manifestation of "homophobia" or "ignorance" or whatever, then so be it. I just reply with the time-tested adage that never did nature say one thing and wisdom another. I stand by it along with my opinion on the subject.
"Nature" does not prescribe a "two heterosexual parent" household. In fact, in many primitive cultures, it's typically one man with a few women, with men having about zero influence in 'raising' the many children. A group of women often raise the children together. At most, men get involved with boys at later ages where they learn "man roles" than are no longer applicable in modern society.
The "nuclear family" is mostly a 20th century concept.
Modern (peer reviewed) studies show that children raised by gay parents (two) are as well adjusted (or even BETTER adjusted in some cases) as compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. Plus, you act as if kids are raised in a vaccuum... with no influence from other family members, friends etc.
If you're so concerned with "the children"... perhaps you should focus your energies on single parent households? Or is it OK for a child's "development" as long as the single parent is heterosexual?
At any rate, until you and/or other social conservatives concerned with "the children" are willing to deny single parent families equality, respect and rights based on some "appeal to nature" argument, I don't see how the "gay families should be denied" argument holds any water whatsoever.
Somehow I figured this mantra (or a reasonable facimile thereof...) would be the response. Oh golly gee, the guy writes books about the Bible? Or is a Christian. As if either of these facts means one cannot also be a competent and respected reasearcher or whatever? That alone is no refutation of Dailey's credentials to point out obvious flaws in the studies in question.
Regardless, you bring up a "reputable source" such as the American Association of Pediatricians? Why are their findings any more valid than those of, say, the American College of Pediatricians (of which many members were/still are members of the AAP?).
Here is something from the latter which reaches opposite conclusions:
But of course, I am sure you will tell me the ACPeds are biased as well, right?
And maybe they are, but please don't try and sell that ridiculous bill of goods that studies/organizations which support your position are not equally biased and could not possibly have an agenda of their own. It won't wash. Just because you call them objective doesn't mean they are. In fact, there is a lot of evidence the opposite it true.
Anyway, like I said in posting yesterday, we can trade studies all day long. I appeal less to studies than I do to common sense and nature. And it just defies both to think that a couple of one sex -- all other things being equal -- can possibly raise a baby/child of the other sex without there being some serious problems in that child's development, even with the best of intentions. Certain things two women could not possibly relate to with a boy becoming a man and likewise two men raising a daughter becoming a young woman. Now if that observation is a manifestation of "homophobia" or "ignorance" or whatever, then so be it. I just reply with the time-tested adage that never did nature say one thing and wisdom another. I stand by it along with my opinion on the subject.
Ok, that is all I have to say on the matter. I don't have time to keep after it hourly just because someone else may reply later (usually with the same name-calling and hysteria ). I just wanted to speak my piece to you on it (and I have to say, you seem one of the generally reasonable ones on the topic). And just because I don't reply to anything later written in response does not mean in the least I am convinced I am in error on my thinking and stance. It just means I don't have time to keep it up indefinitely. Everyone have a good day.
So, as I was always saying, children DO need a MOTHER and a FATHER.
I don't think Iowa actually "legalized" it as much as it was some liberal judges that just decreed it to be so.
Honestly...I don't care if states want to create a new form of marriage. Just don't make my state recognize it and get the federal government out of it.
Who cares how it happened. Without "activist judges" we'd still have fountains for "coloureds" in the deep south.
(Which I suspect many a "conservative" C-D poster actually would support "majority will" segregation...)
Get off the band wagon already.
The KKK came out of the Democratic Party and they hung white republicans along side black
The racists Sheriffs turning fire hoses and police dogs on black civil rights protesters were democrats
The mayors and governors blocking black students from integrating into white schools, banned them from restaurants and forced them to the backs of buses were democrats
The senators filibustering anti-lynching and civil rights laws were democrats.
All the racism, sexism and class warfare during this last presidential election came from the DNC, and the campaigns, candidates and elected politicians of democrats
a did you did you get that quote from the mishna from wikipedia (I'm asking because in order to show you why you are wrong I need to no your knowledge level which based on what you keep saying show your am haratus)
first of all under jewish law a ones is patur (in case you don't understand if you were raped you are not punished) see bava kamma daf 28B
if you still don't understand everything you said above isn't true.
second did you ever learn the gemra in sanhedrian that actualy discuses the prohibition from a halich point of view because if you did you would never say what you did.
Your religious beliefs are an attack on other people's FREEDOM TO LIVE as they are.
We do not and should not dictate freedom based on the pages of the Bible, Torah or Koran, anymore than we use Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairytales as sources of morality and law.
I don't know what your statement has to do with what I wrote I was just correcting misinformation that was said about the jewish religion not advocating that the US should follow jewish law.
I have tremendous issues when someone who I highly doubt can read Hebrew or ever even read the entire 5 books of moses corrects me while copying from other people who have a clear agenda who also don't know what their talking about.
The KKK came out of the Democratic Party and they hung white republicans along side black
The racists Sheriffs turning fire hoses and police dogs on black civil rights protesters were democrats
The mayors and governors blocking black students from integrating into white schools, banned them from restaurants and forced them to the backs of buses were democrats
The senators filibustering anti-lynching and civil rights laws were democrats.
All the racism, sexism and class warfare during this last presidential election came from the DNC, and the campaigns, candidates and elected politicians of democrats
What does this have to do with what I said in the least? And Why are you bringing democrats into the discussion? The discussion is that ACTIVIST JUDGES brought the south out of the social dark ages and made them play nice and act like human beings towards their fellow man by ending segregation by decree. Apparently, the south was too damn stupid to do it by themselves, so it had to be done for them.
And by the way (and I'm not a Democrat, and I sure as hell am not a Republican) why are you so utterly ignorant on the phenomena of the "Dixiecrats"?
So, as I was always saying, children DO need a MOTHER and a FATHER.
No thats not at all what the OP was saying. The point was that a child does better with two parents, gender doesnt matter. Children do better in 2 parent households compared to one parent households, and that goes for mother/father, father/father, mother/mother, etc.
Don't know where the OP has been but 32 states have already banned gay marriage through laws or their constitutional amendments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) would be the response. Oh golly gee, the guy writes books about the Bible? Or is a Christian. As if either of these facts means one cannot also be a competent and respected reasearcher or whatever? That alone is no refutation of Dailey's credentials to point out obvious flaws in the studies in question. 
). I just wanted to speak my piece to you on it (and I have to say, you seem one of the generally reasonable ones on the topic). And just because I don't reply to anything later written in response does not mean in the least I am convinced I am in error on my thinking and stance. It just means I don't have time to keep it up indefinitely. Everyone have a good day. 
