Mark121359
Well-known member
I couldn’t agree more with you. After reading that, there’s not much left to add! Excellent!
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^ Thank you for the graciousness of both posters.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
J
josh987654321
Guest
I think that’s a really good answer, it’s not a complex answer, just a very humble approach to opposing same sex marriage, thank you for sharing that with us Abyssinia, It will help me alot with what to say when opposing same sex marriage if the opportunity presents itself.
I liked your answer aswell Elizabeth502, however I can imagine that it would be quite hard for most people to understand fully.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
To claim that the Regernus study is representative just isn’t true; at least not for the purpose you wish it to be. Only two of the subjects were actually raised in a same-sex household. They did, however, fare far better than the others who were actually raised in broken opposite-sex households. What the study actually shows is that children fare better in a two-parent household regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. Analyzing the benefits of dual vs single parent households is all this study is good for.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
By not taking seriously, I believe one of the two largest studies, the other being published in the Journal of marriage and family, you are disagreeing with the assessments of 30 social scientists who take Regnerus research as important in the field of same sex parenting families
There were 3000 respondents; 73 raised by 2 men and 175 raised by 2 women but only 2 children were raised from birth to age 18 in these families which is evidence of the instability which seems to be at an increased rate in same sex parent families
I dare you to find any study cited by the brief from the APA and other organisations that has as many respondents as Regnerus’ study
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
And you are disagreeing with the assessments of over 200 social scientists and therapists who were very outspoken about the fatally flawed methodology of this study.
That isn’t true. The figures are the result of divorce in opposite-sex households and Regnerus never established whether or not the other parent was in fact homosexual, whether the alleged relationship took place before, during, or after the marriage, or if they even stayed in same-sex households. Sorry, but you cannot point to heterosexual divorce as evidence of instability in homosexual households. Furthermore, nearly all of the respondents you mentioned were raised in a single parent household with the sexual orientation of the parent unidentified by the respondent.Regnerus admitted to inappropriately lumping all of them together as same-sex households even though he had no data to support it. The fact remains that the study says nothing about the stability of same-sex families; but it does say a lot about the impacts of broken homes. The two subjects who actually were raised by same-sex parents for any significant length of time fared far better than those who came from broken opposite-sex households. In fact, I believe he noted that they were equally well off as heterosexual children in opposite-sex households.
It seems that you missed the point. Perhaps this will help. It shouldn’t be difficult to find a study involving more than two children which actually had same-sex parents. Throwing around raw numbers of heterosexual families breaking up doesn’t really prove anything.
J
josh987654321
Guest
So which parent do these studies say we don’t need EmperorNapoleon a mother or a father?
Instead of saying it’s better not to have a father or a mother if they are unhealthy, why don’t we try to help them become healthy parents, because whether you like it or not, a child without a father and mother is a crippled child, it doesn’t mean that they can’t do it, but they are crippled without a mother and father and I don’t know how anyone can argue for crippling a child, most peoples defense is usually, “well they will be less crippled with a healthy mother or father than with an unhealthy mother and father.”
If we give homosexual unions the same rights as hetrosexual mariages, than you are basically saying that they are just as good as one another and that even in a healthy household of a Mother and Father is no different to a healthy household of just a mother or a father, so you are saying that we don’t need one opposite sex of the two parents, our mothers or our fathers?
Instead of saying it’s better not to have a father or a mother if they are unhealthy, why don’t we try to help them become healthy parents, because whether you like it or not, a child without a father and mother is a crippled child, it doesn’t mean that they can’t do it, but they are crippled without a mother and father and I don’t know how anyone can argue for crippling a child, most peoples defense is usually, “well they will be less crippled with a healthy mother or father than with an unhealthy mother and father.”
If we give homosexual unions the same rights as hetrosexual mariages, than you are basically saying that they are just as good as one another and that even in a healthy household of a Mother and Father is no different to a healthy household of just a mother or a father, so you are saying that we don’t need one opposite sex of the two parents, our mothers or our fathers?
J
josh987654321
Guest
So it’s only right to discriminate against homosexual’s when it comes to equal rights as hetrosexual marriages, because every child has a right to a mother and a father, it’s not right to intentionaly cripple them, and those who have been raised without a mother or father will of course say that it’s okay, because they know no different.
And EmperorNapoleon, It say’s in your religion: Agnostic, I know someone who is also Agnostic, I think people who are agnostic are the doubting Thomas’s in the Gospels, who had to touch Jesus wounds before he would believe that he had been raised from the dead.
I think people like Athiests and Agnostic, are those who have to touch the kettle before they can say that it’s hot, unlike others who can see the steam coming from the kettle and other signs that we can conclude that the kettle will most likely be hot, and therfore don’t have to touch it to find out the hard way.
Agnostic especially, because an agnostic basicaly says, yea the kettle is probably hot, but I still have to touch it before I will believe, going from Athiest to Agnostic is to acknowledge the steam coming from the kettle, the next step is to conclude that it is infact ‘hot’.
The Bible and especially Gospels are the signs coming from the kettle, that tells us that it is hot, and I conclude that the kettle is hot because of the truths in them, so therefore I don’t have to touch it to find out.
And EmperorNapoleon, It say’s in your religion: Agnostic, I know someone who is also Agnostic, I think people who are agnostic are the doubting Thomas’s in the Gospels, who had to touch Jesus wounds before he would believe that he had been raised from the dead.
I think people like Athiests and Agnostic, are those who have to touch the kettle before they can say that it’s hot, unlike others who can see the steam coming from the kettle and other signs that we can conclude that the kettle will most likely be hot, and therfore don’t have to touch it to find out the hard way.
Agnostic especially, because an agnostic basicaly says, yea the kettle is probably hot, but I still have to touch it before I will believe, going from Athiest to Agnostic is to acknowledge the steam coming from the kettle, the next step is to conclude that it is infact ‘hot’.
The Bible and especially Gospels are the signs coming from the kettle, that tells us that it is hot, and I conclude that the kettle is hot because of the truths in them, so therefore I don’t have to touch it to find out.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Dr Kion HoffmanAnd you are disagreeing with the assessments of over 200 social scientists and therapists who were very outspoken about the fatally flawed methodology of this study.
That isn’t true. The figures are the result of divorce in opposite-sex households and Regnerus never established whether or not the other parent was in fact homosexual, whether the alleged relationship took place before, during, or after the marriage, or if they even stayed in same-sex households. Sorry, but you cannot point to heterosexual divorce as evidence of instability in homosexual households. Furthermore, nearly all of the respondents you mentioned were raised in a single parent household with the sexual orientation of the parent unidentified by the respondent.Regnerus admitted to inappropriately lumping all of them together as same-sex households even though he had no data to support it. The fact remains that the study says nothing about the stability of same-sex families; but it does say a lot about the impacts of broken homes. The two subjects who actually were raised by same-sex parents for any significant length of time fared far better than those who came from broken opposite-sex households. In fact, I believe he noted that they were equally well off as heterosexual children in opposite-sex households.
It seems that you missed the point. Perhaps this will help. It shouldn’t be difficult to find a study involving more than two children which actually had same-sex parents. Throwing around raw numbers of heterosexual families breaking up doesn’t really prove anything.
duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/246725/group/homepage
I asked you specifically name or give a link to a study which has a mix of respondents totalling 3000?
There is only one other study that I have heard of that is as nearly as large and representative as the Regnerus study’ and that is in the Journal of marriage and family and that has simialr results showing increased instability in same sex parent families
baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Potter.pdf
I question if those social scientists and therapists would be complaining about Regnerus’ study if it had found children raised in same sex parenting families had just as good outcomes as children raised in hetrosexual parent families. I have heard of some studies on same sex parenting being done on a combination of 12 people from same sex parenting families and hetrosexual families combined? Are the names in the link you provided complaining about the methodology in those studies?
University of Texas led an inquiry into Regnerus’ study and it did not lead to a formal investigation. Regnerus was found not guilty of scientific misconduct, so to speak
utexas.edu/news/2012/08/29/regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed
E
epan
Guest
I would like to express the opinion, that these studies really have far less value individually, than looking at the totality of research. Many, in fact most, studies are imperfect, and subject to critique. That is the point of peer review, and also other researchers repeating experiments and studies, either improving the method, or to confirm or deny another researcher’s results. It is really about the entire body of known research.
Having said that, there are some obviously better, and some obviously worse studies. For example, one which was mentioned in these threads was financed by a conservative religious “think tank” which promotes a particular non-scientific point of view. To support that view, they paid for a university researcher to conduct a study. But then, the study results were turned over to the religious groups for the mathematics and analysis. When those same raw data were turned over to an academic researcher, with no particular propaganda interest, then the results turned out to be entirely different.
I would suggest caution, in giving too much credence or importance to any one, or any few of these studies. Rather, look at the opinion of the people who are professional in the field, who have the training behind them after many years of study, who often have the experience of a clinical practice, who are teaching the subject at a graduate level, and who are continually reading the literature on the topic.
This is why there are professional organizations. For example in electronics, the professional engineering organizations set up expert panels and committees, who poll the highly educated and practicing professionals, to come up with the best known engineering standards. These standards are submitted for consideration and review, and then adopted. Medicine is much the same way. Diagnostic and treatment standards come from a rich and complex interaction between academics, practitioners, and government regulators and agencies. They can take years to develop.
So, when the APA and the AMA and other professional organizations, each with thousands of members who devote their lives to the topic, publishes a position, it is really rather prideful and actually a display of ignorance more than anything, to take exception to it based on one study, or a particular religious or philosophical point of view.
I hope this makes sense. Those organizations don’t just send a committee into a room for the afternoon, and then publish these papers. They usually take years of research and experience. The best people for the task are chosen, based on experience and research. A very broad range of papers are reviewed. People meet at conventions, discuss in emails and published papers. Clinical findings are reviewed. Thousands of members typically vote, based on their own education, research and experience.
If you go to a surgeon for a hip replacement, do you instruct him or her on the procedure, or do you rely on that practitioner’s education, experience and skill to do the right thing? There is a substantial knowledge base to be mastered in all of these fields. But there is also art and judgement to the application of that knowledge. I can sit you down, and run you through a power point presentation. Take you into an operating room to observe the procedure. Make sure that you know the anatomy and procedure. But even when you have that knowledge, I won’t hand you a set of orthopedic tools and ask to you replace my knee. Nor, would I expect you to be able to interpret an Xray or CT scan image and be able to say much about it diagnostically. This analogy also applies to these psychological studies. You really need to be more informed than most laymen to really understand them.
I think it is counter productive to throw individual study results at each other, and then pretend to be an expert in a topic, because you found someone who agrees with you.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
You’re presenting a false dilemma here. The gender(s) of the parent doesn’t really matter so long as there are two of them.The problem’s which arise from single-parent child rearing are not the result of the absence of a parent filling some specific gender role. Gender roles just aren’t that pronounced anymore.
No, I’m saying, as the study in question demonstrates, that stable two-parent households are ideal and stable same-sex households raise children better than single-parent households of either orientation and equally as well as stable opposite-sex households.
You’re asking the wrong question. Having 3,000 respondents doesn’t matter if only two of them were actually raised in a same-sex household. If you want to study same-sex parenting then you will need more than two respondents.
They didn’t take issue with number of respondents per say; they took issue with Regnerus’ admitted deliberate miscategorization of households to inflate the number of same-sex households because he couldn’t find enough respondents who were actually raised in a same-sex household. Once again, heterosexual divorce says nothing about the stability of homosexual households. The fact remains that this study is soundly rejected as a measure of same-sex parenting because of its methodology. That is all. Why does there have to be some vast conspiracy?
The Regnerus study still has value but not in studying same-sex parenting. It is an excellent study to measure the impacts of divorce and single-parent child rearing. His idea was good but the implementation was not. The reality is that the study is ahead of its time in the sense that there just were not that many same-sex households in the 1950s and 1960s.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I go back to Loren Marks
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
I am not going to trust the APA at their word just because of their status as a psychological based organisation
APA concluded in a report on abortion and mental health
apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx
Everybody should question the APA on all their claims after a statement like that. 6 people with PhDs carried out that report and they are 100% wrong. Hundreds of studies have shown an increased rate of mental health problems in women who have abortion
J
josh987654321
Guest
I will probably never have the right words to oppose same sex marriage, just like i’ll never have the right words to oppose abortion, euthanasia and suicide, but I know that they are all wrong to support in any way, because I know that God places great value on all his creation.
EmporerNapolean, I am curious, what would it take for you to change your religion from Agnostic to Christian or Catholic?
Would it take a miracle?
Because if that’s the case I have a very good yet very short documantary from an Australian journalist “Mike Willisee” known as “Signs From God”, in which they set out to test these miracles.
youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=70
And a 3 min clip from a former athiest, who discusses the supernatural nature of her messages.
youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=921
Please watch these video’s, they are really quite something.
EmporerNapolean, I am curious, what would it take for you to change your religion from Agnostic to Christian or Catholic?
Would it take a miracle?
Because if that’s the case I have a very good yet very short documantary from an Australian journalist “Mike Willisee” known as “Signs From God”, in which they set out to test these miracles.
youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=70
And a 3 min clip from a former athiest, who discusses the supernatural nature of her messages.
youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=921
Please watch these video’s, they are really quite something.
E
epan
Guest
Of course. That is your opinion. I hope you are not surprised that legislators and others who make decisions do rely on people and organizations who can actually demonstrate expertise on a topic though.
I don’t know what your background is, but if it include graduate work in the area of psychology, and preferably having an advanced degree, and if you can couple that with some additional years of clinical experience, then I would hope that your opinion will be taken more seriously, than it might be otherwise, simply because you would be more qualified to evaluate what you are looking at.
And don’t take that personally. We all seek expertise in area which we don’t understand.
J
josh987654321
Guest
By the way I found a link on here
The Threat Against
Marriage Is Real!
Click here to get this free booklet!
and I found a free copy of the small booklet online as pdf “Why homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages”
It’s at catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf
Anyway EmporerNapolean, I think it explains homosexuality the best, it’s a very short booklet, please read it, it’s much easier than looking at all kinds of statistic information that will encourage a discussion that goes around in circles.
Also can anyone point me to Catholic Answer booklets like this one, in which is about Euthanasia, Abortion or Suicide?
Thank you.
Josh
The Threat Against
Marriage Is Real!
Click here to get this free booklet!
and I found a free copy of the small booklet online as pdf “Why homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages”
It’s at catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf
Anyway EmporerNapolean, I think it explains homosexuality the best, it’s a very short booklet, please read it, it’s much easier than looking at all kinds of statistic information that will encourage a discussion that goes around in circles.
Also can anyone point me to Catholic Answer booklets like this one, in which is about Euthanasia, Abortion or Suicide?
Thank you.
Josh
E
epan
Guest
Can you see that the question was nonsensical though? I think it is important to separate logic from emotion in this sort of debate.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Depriving children of having a mother and father leads them to confusion in adult life as they learn to understand how men and women have relationships around them. This is not a world in which there is 1 gender. Having a mother and father in extremly important in understanding how male/female relationsips work and that balance is important for children growing up
You are reading something into the study that I do not see
What I see from the study is that the outcomes for children raised by biological married and father compared to children raised by same sex parent familes found that the children raised in same sex parent families did worse out of 77 out of 80 measures of outcome with the 3 excemptions being that children raised by lesbians used alcohol less frequently, children raised by homosexual fathers used alcohol at same rate as children raised in biological families
15000 people were looked at to paricipate and then 3000 were chosen as representitive. 175 raised by 2 women, 73 raised by 2 men
Two you mean were the only children that were raised from birth to age 18 in same sex households, meaning there was instability in the overwhelming majority of the relationships that the homosexuals had that were looking after the children
Overall 248 children from same sex households were studied
It is not soundly rejected. University of Texas vindicated Regenrus’ from the criticism he received and many social scientists have defend Regerus’ methodology. When I see social scientsts criticise Rgeenrus’ study also criticise the studies on same sex parenting which are done on a combo of 12 children raised in biological families and same sex parenting families then I might take them more seriously, but I would still take Regenrus’ study to be a credible addition to the ongoing research in the field
J
josh987654321
Guest
I don’t see it as nonsensical, I think every child needs a mother and a father, to do it any other way is to do it crippled, sometimes it happens, but we shouldn’t be saying it is an acceptable norm.
Anyway I came here to find the right words and I think I have found them, please read this very short booklet, wont take you more than 10 minutes, than tell me what you think.
catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf
Thank you
Josh.
Anyway I came here to find the right words and I think I have found them, please read this very short booklet, wont take you more than 10 minutes, than tell me what you think.
catholic.com/sites/default/files/why_homosexual_unions_are_not_marriages.pdf
Thank you
Josh.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Its not about if SS parents can provide a quality life for a child. Or if an individual can or will be a good parent. This premise relies on the priority of the child. Which is a false premise, life is the first priority [essential] which relies on the union of man and women. The priority of the child becomes the result by the union of man and woman. The horse and cart are reversed.
.
.
- Status