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.
Not so fast. The fact of the matter is that every study done to date shows that no differences in developmental parameters exist between children raised by heterosexual vs. homosexual parents.
NARTH can throw all the stones they want at the data, but you have to ask the question "Where is their data backing up their conclusion?"
Decisions are made with the information we have in front of us at that particular point. NARTH can criticize all they want, but why haven't they done their own study if they are so sure of the conclusion? Why haven't anyone else if the data in the APA study is so weak?
As far as the impartiality of the APA....of course they can be neutral, just like every other scientist has to be. The APA has compiled data from scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed, and if bias was present it would have been called out there.
Ok...got time for one more quick reply, then I gotta go do my job! LOL
It really boils down to what I have been saying all along. People are just going to believe what they want to on this topic.
The conclusions reached by NARTH are spelled out clearly, and the citations provided. Which is that the methodology employed by the study cited as "proof" is extremely flawed. You don't have to accept this of course, but "every study done to date" (as you put it) is patently not true if they (1) have an agenda and/or (2) use questionable data and means to arrive at the data.
I am no statistician, but even a good ol' Texas boy like me knows that! LOL
And I can provide you with counter-data. And will be happy to. I haven't done it yet because I know ahead of time it will be rejected precisely for the reason that many of those who undertook it (as impeccable as their scholarly credentials are) also -- in some cases -- have religious beliefs which you (as in second person sense, not necessarily you personally)
will reject as being biased. In the same way those on the other side will look askance on those who are openly in the same-sex marriage camp. That part is just human nature, I think.
Another thing, which we both might agree on. At this point in time, the raising of children from infancy or early childhood by same-sex parents (that is to say, where they recieved their main rearing) is still in infancy itself. Therefore, there really can't be any objective studies done for the simple fact the sample group is far too small. Most done at this point in time have other influences affecting (gay parents whose children were from heterosexual relationship, etc). And finally, the "different characteristics" which are documented from those which have been done, usually have a lot of value judgement attached as to being desirable or undesirable.
For instance, (just to make up one), what if both studies (pro and con) concluded male children from same-sex raising tended to be "less aggressive" than their peers?
That can mean anything. And to some, this might be a positive quality. To others, it might mean the kid is more likely to be bullied and very unhappy. This is a simplistic analogy, but very real in its implication.
Now, at least for now, I got things need taken care of! Enjoyed the discussion/debate and I am sure we will continue later.
II just happen to believe -- part of it is my religious philosophy -- that in the institution of marriage is properly defined as being between a man and woman.
You do realize that marriage was a legal agreement long before it was a religious sacrament right? Just because a religion took the idea doesn't mean that they are now authorized to define what it is for the government. I'm fine if religion wants to use it for their own purposes, but we aren't discussing that. Fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And has been recognized as such in just about every society which has ever existed.
No society to date has ever had to deal with this particular issue. Fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Not the least reason being nature itself. An environment in which to raise and properly protect and nurture children is one (and of course, at this point we go back to an earlier sub-topic), and a society has a vested interest in the same.
...And once again, you have not properly shown any data/studies that would suggest that children raised by homosexual parents are any worse off than those raised by heterosexual parent.
You pointed out that only a few studies have been done, but that doesn't mean that the work done to date is any less convincing/correct.
Unless you are willing to show me specifically where those studies fall short and their conclusions are not valid....fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Also, there is no logical reason why if marriage is re-defined to include same-sex couples, then it can't be re-defined up the road in other ways...
...And that is "up-the-road" as you say and has nothing to do with the current conversation. Strawman fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Anyway, I gotta get to work! LOL
Not an impressive argument, I hope you aren't a lawyer!
So we can kick gays around, insult them, spit on them, even deny them civil rights ... and as long as we don't kill them, it's OK?
Well, both of the hate crimes being investigated in Maine this week (death threats) happen to be self-admitted gays telling people who worked to preserve old-fashioned marriage that they were going to kill them. And that they had guns and meant it.
I guess the gays who did the threatening just got confused, and forgot that they were supposed to sit back and wait for the death threats to be made against THEM......
Or something like that.
It really boils down to what I have been saying all along. People are just going to believe what they want to on this topic.
I disagree....you want to believe what you want because you are unwilling to think of things from another side. I can handle people being stupid, but I can't handle people being unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The conclusions reached by NARTH are spelled out clearly, and the citations provided. Which is that the methodology employed by the study cited as "proof" is extremely flawed. You don't have to accept this of course, but "every study done to date" (as you put it) is patently not true if they (1) have an agenda and/or (2) use questionable data and means to arrive at the data.
I am no statistician, but even a good ol' Texas boy like me knows that! LOL
You scrutinize peer-reviewed data and conclude that it is worthless, but take NARTH's conclusions at face value. Try applying your scrutiny to NARTH's position. You are suffering from confirmation bias...you only accept data that confirms the conclusion you already think to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And I can provide you with counter-data. And will be happy to. I haven't done it yet because I know ahead of time it will be rejected precisely for the reason that many of those who undertook it (as impeccable as their scholarly credentials are) also -- in some cases -- have religious beliefs which you (as in second person sense, not necessarily you personally)
will reject as being biased. In the same way those on the other side will look askance on those who are openly in the same-sex marriage camp. That part is just human nature, I think.
I would LOVE to see this data...I hope it REAL data, not just criticisms of existing data like you've posted already. But you don't have any. Want to know how I know? Because I live in Maine and we just voted on this issue. If there was HARD DATA showing that kids were hindered developmentally because of their same sex parents, the yes-on-1 folk would have air-dropped copies of that study across the entire state, and it would have been on every news show for the past month!!!
You don't have the data because it doesn't exist. These yes-on-folks spend money on TV ads and lawn placards, not scientific studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Another thing, which we both might agree on. At this point in time, the raising of children from infancy or early childhood by same-sex parents (that is to say, where they recieved their main rearing) is still in infancy itself. Therefore, there really can't be any objective studies done for the simple fact the sample group is far too small. Most done at this point in time have other influences affecting (gay parents whose children were from heterosexual relationship, etc). And finally, the "different characteristics" which are documented from those which have been done, usually have a lot of value judgement attached as to being desirable or undesirable.
...and how many scientific studies need to be published to ease your troubled mind....10?, 100?, 1000?....at what point are you going to be convinced? Hint: You won't be...as you already mentioned above you are going to believe what you want to believe.
At least do us all the favor and admit that no study is going to sway your mind....its tiring watching you try and keep up this facade that you've actually put some thought into this and made some sort of decision by yourself.
Well, both of the hate crimes being investigated in Maine this week (death threats) happen to be self-admitted gays telling people who worked to preserve old-fashioned marriage that they were going to kill them. And that they had guns and meant it.
I guess the gays who did the threatening just got confused, and forgot that they were supposed to sit back and wait for the death threats to be made against THEM......
Or something like that.
Nobody said there weren't bad people on both side of the debate...thanks for playing though.
Wow, that is an inflammatory statement. Are you saying a straight couple adopting is not a social experiment? Even if gay couples can not adopt there is nothing to stop them having children other ways via surrogacy, IVF, etc. Are you saying gay couples should not be parents at all, under any circumstances?
I work as a licensed master social worker, working with families in need. This includes kids who are being adopted or who have been adopted, or adults doing the adopting. In-home, intense family therapy.
I could tell you a few things about the way kids are used as pawns and chits, in order to advance social experimentation and political correctness ("we must let gays be treated the same as other parents or we're being mean").
I could tell you what it does to kids to be used in that way, and how shameful it is. I've seen it up close and personal, and tried to repair the damage. (Oh, and I AM a professional, of course......and I ALWAYS put aside my personal feelings and work like hell to help WHOEVER is sitting across the table from me, gay or straight. People are people FIRST).
We don't give a damn about kids in this country. We DO, however, care a great deal about gays and gay rights. Go figure that one out, if you can.
We are a shameless society.
Or we wouldn't do what we do.
Oh man...glad I caught this one before signing off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbill
You do realize that marriage was a legal agreement long before it was a religious sacrament right? Just because a religion took the idea doesn't mean that they are now authorized to define what it is for the government. I'm fine if religion wants to use it for their own purposes, but we aren't discussing that. Fail.
No, you fail. You asked me for MY reasons. Right? I gave them to you. Don't ask if you don't want them. So far the broader context goes? Many people choose civil ceremonies for the marriage vows, and religion has nothing to do with some peoples reasons. But regardless, the institution is still recognized by society as being between a man and woman.
Quote:
No society to date has ever had to deal with this particular issue. Fail.
Sure they have. Eurpope is doing it right now. Point was related to why I was opposed to changing the definition. And I cited that every society to date has always recognized the institution as between a man and woman. You fail again.
{QUOTE] ...And once again, you have not properly shown any data/studies that would suggest that children raised by homosexual parents are any worse off than those raised by heterosexual parent.
You pointed out that only a few studies have been done, but that doesn't mean that the work done to date is any less convincing/correct.
Unless you are willing to show me specifically where those studies fall short and their conclusions are not valid....fail.
Oh man, did you read any of what I wrote at all? The main point was that if methodology is flawed, then the conclusions will be. I posted an article which pointed out those many flaws in the ones you like to cite. Now then, you don't have to accept it, bur really, I don't know how much fairer I can be in stating that on this topic people are really going to believe what they want to believe.
Unfortunately "up the road" some have no objection to using kids as poker chips for their own agenda.
But ok, here is one of the studies which take an opposite view of yours.
...And that is "up-the-road" as you say and has nothing to do with the current conversation. Strawman fail.
The only way it fails is you don't believe ideas have later consequences. Although I understand why you would want to avoid this aspect of it. Good try but no cigar
Quote:
Not an impressive argument, I hope you aren't a lawyer!
No, but I do have to work for a living. Do you? And we might both agree to be glad neither of us are lawyers.
So I'll ask....WHY are you resistant to redefining the definition of marriage? What is the big deal?
Honestly, I'm just asking....I've asked this before and haven't heard anything that I would classify as a "big deal" so I thought I'd ask again.
.
I will answer, for me:
I believe that in some huge, strange way that I don't fully understand, humankind has developed a preposterous thing over millenia. Somehow, the cosmos or evolution or God or whatever you want to call it has inexorably pushed for the impossible to happen: for male and female to join and become one. It is impossible. They are polar opposites. And yet................for some reason it seems life wants it to happen. The word "marriage" means exactly this............two things that are somehow coming from their own differences to become one. In this case, two very, very different things.
Of COURSE it is hard! If humans had to choose or vote on whether to undertake such a preposterous venture, we would have voted NO, ten thousand years ago. It seems like a crazy proposition, and it seems impossibly difficult even at first blush.
YET..........somehow it has happened. Female and Male..........not separate. But joined. And not just for an hour of pleasure. For what some consider eternity. (I know............even more preposterous!)
This is the HISTORY and REALITY we in this time have inherited......it is a very large part of the human experiment and who we are as human society.
Yet now, for some reason, we choose to toss all the above out the window?? Many people look at THAT idea and say, "no, no.............gays can go create something of their own, as hard as that would be." You see, "we" as straight men and women have thousands and thousands of years of work and effort and failure and success invested in this process, and in this event ("marriage"). We want to keep it going. We don't want to throw the very definition of it out the window, and give up on this joining of male and female. As a very strange, special thing.
Again----gays will have to create and come up with their own institution. That's just the way it is. I don't blame them for wanting to take the easier way out and just "hijack" what's already going, between male and female. But we say no.............this is ours. Nothing against you...........but this is our thing. For better or for worse. (no pun intended).
If you find any hate in that answer, well then Hai Carumba!!
All of this has been answered and hashed before. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. We proceed from different premises, as it is.
And again, so far as insults go, this is really odd. Let's see, you say you "reference" me as being a male chauvanist pig (your own words above), but that is not an insult? Of course, personally, as you don't know me in the least, then this opinion is more amusing than insulting. Same as being called a bigot or homophobe (whatever meaning is assigned to that). On the other hand, I can't find a place where I insulted you at all. Maybe you are just just overly sensitive...I don't know.
I have said it before and will say it again. I have no problem with civil unions. However, I do not believe all life-styles are equal, and do not want traditional definitions of marriage (i.e. between a man and woman) to be re-defined. It you want to try and change it, there is a legislative democratic process which allows one to do so, and it is certainly your right to try. On the other hand, I will resist it, and this MY right. It has nothing to do with "hate"...although unfortunately, that is as far as many seem to understand the opposing viewpoint (or care to).
BTW -- I too believe that divorce should not be so easy...
Again, TexasReb, I did not call you or reference you as a male chauvinist pig, Did I? I said that many of the problems in the US are from them. I do not see why this is so difficult for you to see. You insulted me when you said I was ranting, when I was doing no such thing. I will not let you put words in my mouth. I believe it is you that is overly sensitive. At least we agree on one thing, divorce is way too easy, thus making marriage also too easy to get into and out of. Marriage should be difficult to acquire and more difficult to dissolve, that would do away with Brittany Spears weddings. How would you like to have government declare you incapable of getting married? How would you like it if the majority had the right to prevent you from marrying the one you love. If anything, it is the church that needs to stop getting involved in politics and the lives of those not in the church. There is a proper place for religion and religious teaching and that is in the church. I re read my post that you refer too, I owe you an apology. I meant that I did not refer. If you go back to where I first mentioned male chauvinist pigs, it did not make a reference to you. Again, I apologize.
I will answer, for me:
I believe that in some huge, strange way that I don't fully understand, humankind has developed a preposterous thing over millenia. Somehow, the cosmos or evolution or God or whatever you want to call it has inexorably pushed for the impossible to happen: for male and female to join and become one. It is impossible. They are polar opposites. And yet................for some reason it seems life wants it to happen. The word "marriage" means exactly this............two things that are somehow coming from their own differences to become one. In this case, two very, very different things.
Of COURSE it is hard! If humans had to choose or vote on whether to undertake such a preposterous venture, we would have voted NO, ten thousand years ago. It seems like a crazy proposition, and it seems impossibly difficult even at first blush.
YET..........somehow it has happened. Female and Male..........not separate. But joined. And not just for an hour of pleasure. For what some consider eternity. (I know............even more preposterous!)
This is the HISTORY and REALITY we in this time have inherited......it is a very large part of the human experiment and who we are as human society.
Yet now, for some reason, we choose to toss all the above out the window?? Many people look at THAT idea and say, "no, no.............gays can go create something of their own, as hard as that would be." You see, "we" as straight men and women have thousands and thousands of years of work and effort and failure and success invested in this process, and in this event ("marriage"). We want to keep it going. We don't want to throw the very definition of it out the window, and give up on this joining of male and female. As a very strange, special thing.
Again----gays will have to create and come up with their own institution. That's just the way it is. I don't blame them for wanting to take the easier way out and just "hijack" what's already going, between male and female. But we say no.............this is ours. Nothing against you...........but this is our thing. For better or for worse. (no pun intended).
If you find any hate in that answer, well then Hai Carumba!!
So your argument is that since heterosexuals came up with the idea of marriage, that nobody else can have it now? You sound like a 3-year-old who doesn't want to share their blocks with another toddler.
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.
