Gay marriage

[TracerBullet]

Research has shown that children do best with their biological parents - or at least with two parents of opposite sex.

Modern researchers have tried to overturn this idea with case studies of very limited numbers of children being raised by homosexual couples.

did you research this for yourself or did you get it from some anti-gay webpage?

If you read those studies, you'll find ideas like this:

1.) Children raised by homosexual couples are not more likely to be abused by their parents than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

2.) Children raised by homosexual couples have their sexual identities affected by their parents only slightly more than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

3.) Children raised by homosexual couples tend to do as well in school as children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

There is research that shows children raised in homosexual families do suffer in certain categories as compared to children raised in heterosexual families -

what research?

The president got attacked by liberal scientists for suggesting that fathers were an essential and important determinant in raising healthy children.

Citation?

 

[Hedshaker]

Jesus Christs opinion in this matter is that civil government should protect, defend, establish, recognize, etc. religious liberty and the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to not practice religion. His opinion prevailed on this issue.

Get used to it.


Daniel

Lol, you sound like the boxer sprawled out on the floor but refusing to admit he's been knocked out!

And btw, I've been used to it for decades. But, well Bob Dylan says it best:

It's progress folks

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Lol, you sound like the boxer sprawled out on the floor but refusing to admit he's been knocked out!...

I . . . don't think so. Read it again?


Daniel

 

[Aaron the Tall]

did you research this for yourself or did you get it from some anti-gay webpage?

Actually, links to these papers were provided by a pro-gay website.

Research showing children do better with heterosexual parents:

Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.

Allen, D. W. (2013). High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household, 11(4), 635-658.

Sullins, D. P. (2015). Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, (forthcoming).

If you read those studies, you'll find ideas like this:

1.) Children raised by homosexual couples are not more likely to be abused by their parents than children raised by heterosexual couples, THEREFORE the gender of the parents is immaterial.

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

I heard this claim made by a pro-gay college professor in a lecture on the subject - I don't have the information at hand on the specific study he was citing.

Please cite any legitimately published study that says this

The following studies are being used by homosexual marriage advocates to prove that the gender of the parents is immaterial (conclusions stated first in bold):

Children of gay parents are only slightly affected by the sexual orientation of the parents: Bailey, J., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual Orientation Of Adult Sons Of Gay Fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 124-129.

Children of gay parents have similar intelligence scores as children of straight parents: Bos, H. M. W., van Balen F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Lesbian families and family functioning: an overview. Patient Education and Counseling, 59(3), 263-275.

Children of gay parents are not more likely to be heavy substance users (although they are more likely to be occasional substance users).
Goldberg, N. G., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2011). Substance use by adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(8), 1231-1240.

-------------------------------------------------------

For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To assess the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To assess the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To assess parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To assess parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?

One of these studies found that the children of single mothers fared equally as well in the particular accessed categories as the children of heterosexual and homosexual parents - yet we wouldn't use the study as proof that being raised in a single parent home is just as ideal as being raised in a dual-parent home.

Citation?

This paper criticized Obabma's "stereotypical" view of fatherhood, quoting him as saying "Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives,
we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that
foundation."

Talk about controversial...

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 3-22.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I'm not sure of the logical genesis behind this silly inquiry....nonetheless, there are practical benefits to legally sanctioned marriage. Though, for some, the more important aspect of legalized same-sex marriage is based upon the principle of equality i.e. the unjustified lack thereof.

Do you recognize any legitimate reasons why the government would give certain benefits to a group or individual that it doesn't give to all groups or individuals?

We are all equal as individuals - but that doesn't mean that all of our relationships should receive equal recognition.

No you haven't. You've offered asserted benefits to society, with the implication that since homosexuals can't benefit society in the same manner they should not receive the same consideration. What you haven't offered are reasons as to how those benefits are to be threatened by the inclusion of homosexuals to the institution of marriage.

I haven't made the claim that the unique benefits provided by heterosexual marriages will be threatened by the inclusion of homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriages will always be the only union inherently capable of producing the next generation, regardless of what other unions are called marriage. My point is that government's responsibility is to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage.

Not an apt analogy. First, homosexuals are not refusing to "join the health club"..... on the contrary, they are fighting an unjust exclusion from joining the "health club". Second, this does not follow. The health of the indvidual club members are not affected by giving the perk to non-members....there's simply no cause or correlation between the two. Third, perhaps the motivation to join the health club may diminish under such circumstance....though a lack of motivation to rear children/procreate is not affectively analogous with the inclusion of homosexuals into the marriage contract.

Of course, not every detail of the analogy applies - but the point is that there are good reasons to give certain people benefits over other people.

 

[TracerBullet]

Actually, links to these papers were provided by a pro-gay website.

Link?

Research showing children do better with heterosexual parents:

Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.

"Some commentators claim a single, unreplicated 1996 Australian study demonstrates the existence of deficits in lesbian and gay parents and their children. See S. Sarantakos, Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development, 21 Child. Australia 23 (1996). But the anomalous Sarantakos results
are likely the result of multiple methodological problems, especially confounding effects of parental sexual orientation with effects of parental divorce, because divorce is known to correlate with poor adjustment and academic performance." Amicus brief APA

Sullins, D. P. (2015). Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, (forthcoming).

It turns out that the British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science isn't British and is a pay for publication journal. If you pay their fee they will publish your "research"







For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To access the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To access the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To access parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To access parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?
[/quote]

Here is the full study Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter None of these questions appear anywhere. So where did the questions come from?

 

[quip]

I haven't made the claim that the unique benefits provided by heterosexual marriages will be threatened by the inclusion of homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriages will always be the only union inherently capable of producing the next generation, regardless of what other unions are called marriage. My point is that government's responsibility is to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage.

Again, this doesn't follow. The government is indeed responsible to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage. Since homosexual inclusion into the pact has no such negative effecs upon such, your insistence that the government promote heterosexual marriage at the exclusion of homosexual ones...holds no grounds for support.

P.S. The government likewise has a responsibility to respect, defend and promote American's civil rights.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

For a closer look, consider the following study: Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(3), 164–178, 2010

The authors conclude with these statements: "Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Our results suggest that lesbian and gay adults can and do make capable adoptive parents."

Here are some of the survey questions that led to this conclusion:

1.) To access the child's behavioral adjustment, parents were asked to rate on a scale if their child "Looks unhappy for no good reason."

2.) To access the child's gender role behavior, parents were asked to rate if their child "Enjoys rough and tumble play" or "likes pretty things."

3.) To access parental stress, parents were asked to agree/disagree with statements like "I get so frustrated and angry that my child can see I'm upset" or "I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent."

4.) To access parental relationship satisfaction, parents answered questions like "do you and your mate engage in outside interests together."

So, if the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that their children don't look depressed and like to play with gender-specific toys - it is trumpeted as proof that having a mom doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

If the heterosexual and homosexual parents equally replied that they don't feel trapped with parental responsibilities and that the parents engage in outside interests together - it is trumpeted as proof that having a dad doesn't matter, as long as there are two parents in the home.

How can you make such a claim based on such shallow questionnaire data?

Here is the full study Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter None of these questions appear anywhere. So where did the questions come from?

????

I guess you didn't read the paper. Those are the example questions from the study - each given within the paper.

 

[Lon]

Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin

No, and the way you said this one-sided is spiteful and bigoted :doh:

I REALLY wish atheists could see self-propogated irony :sigh:

(wishes aren't worth much)

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Again, this doesn't follow. The government is indeed responsible to promote the benefits of heterosexual marriage. Since homosexual inclusion into the pact has no such negative effecs upon such, your insistence that the government promote heterosexual marriage at the exclusion of homosexual ones...holds no grounds for support.

P.S. The government likewise has a responsibility to respect, defend and promote American's civil rights.

So, are you agreeing that heterosexual marriage has distinct benefits? It sounded like you were defending the position that having a mom isn't important.

If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that.

Would you support the idea of giving every American the same government recognition as Native Americans, regardless of nationality?

If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

 

[Hedshaker]

No, and the way you said this one-sided is spiteful and bigoted :doh:

Not in context of what it was replying to, advocating to resist recognising it as marriage

I'll bet slavers thought criminalising slavery was "one-sided, spiteful and bigoted" against them, too at the time. Must have hurt their pockets for sure :cigar:

Same sex marriage is a great victory for what is right and fair Lon, don't you agree?

 

[Lon]

Not in context of what it was replying to, advocating to resist recognising it as marriage

I'll bet slavers thought criminalising slavery was "one-sided, spiteful and bigoted" against them, too at the time.

Equivocating erroneously. Learn to 'listen' and you might understand your problem. Not 'listening' and interpreting as you like is a step toward bigotry, no?

Same sex marriage is a great victory for what is right and fair Lon, don't you agree?

We need to define that term 'marriage.' The problem, on this side of the fence, is correct. I think "holy union" helped pave the way toward understanding of the issue. The largest problem here is about that term "marriage." It indeed, is redefined. I only wish they would have called it "Civil Union." The state, you, and I are concerned with fairness. Yes I share that, but I also agree that "marriage" redefinition should have people up in arms. I do realize "Marriage" applies to both secular and sacred understandings but the problem is 1) the Bible translates "marriage" so it became a sacred term and 2) the state adopted that term THEN redefined it. Of course they never for saw a need to delineate, but the current laws are running roughshod over sanctities. If they had half a sense, they'd have initiated "Civil Unions" for all at the Justice of the Peace. Part of it is that gays wanted to call it 'marriage' too. The Government didn't actually give them that right, as far as redefining the biblical term. That really is the problem that caused a lot of this unnecessary debate.

 

[quip]

If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that.

For the same reasons government promotes marriages that produce no children.

If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

No we're not. We are promoting love of family...be it two fathers or two mothers.

You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

Biased nonsense.

The system currently has more children within it than applicable families adopting them. If anything, this will be a boost for such children and in turn . . . society at large will be better for it.

 

[Ktoyou]

Gay marriage has to mean happy delightful marriage, for if it means any other, then it degrades language, which is the software of your thought process.

To define gay and marriage in any other way is to corrupt your thinking.

Once you use terms, which are used in a debased manner, you partake in the debasement of our language and yourself.

 

[Hedshaker]

Equivocating erroneously. Learn to 'listen' and you might understand your problem. Not 'listening' and interpreting as you like is a step toward bigotry, no?


We need to define that term 'marriage.' The problem, on this side of the fence, is correct. I think "holy union" helped pave the way toward understanding of the issue. The largest problem here is about that term "marriage." It indeed, is redefined. I only wish they would have called it "Civil Union." The state, you, and I are concerned with fairness. Yes I share that, but I also agree that "marriage" redefinition should have people up in arms. I do realize "Marriage" applies to both secular and sacred understandings but the problem is 1) the Bible translates "marriage" so it became a sacred term and 2) the state adopted that term THEN redefined it. Of course they never for saw a need to delineate, but the current laws are running roughshod over sanctities. If they had half a sense, they'd have initiated "Civil Unions" for all at the Justice of the Peace. Part of it is that gays wanted to call it 'marriage' too. The Government didn't actually give them that right, as far as redefining the biblical term. That really is the problem that caused a lot of this unnecessary debate.

Sorry Lon I got as far as "holy union" and stopped there. I have neither the time nor the inclination for your bigotry, nor do I recognise a word of wisdom in what you have had to say. Not listening, interpreting as you like and insulting those you don't agree with just about sums you up. Well guess what? I don't have to listen to it.

Feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better, I assure you I won't read a word of it.

Good day.

 

[TracerBullet]

So, are you agreeing that heterosexual marriage has distinct benefits? It sounded like you were defending the position that having a mom isn't important.

If homosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that heterosexual marriages provide, why should they promoted as equal? It's as simple as that.

If infertile heterosexual unions don't provide the same benefits that fertile heterosexual marriages provide, why should they be promoted as equal?

Would you support the idea of giving every American the same government recognition as Native Americans, regardless of nationality?

irrelevant

If we say that homosexual unions are the same thing as heterosexual marriages, we are promoting the idea that fathers are not important to a child's development - and that mothers are not important to a child's development.

which no one is saying

You won't be diminishing the actual benefits of heterosexual marriages by making these claims - but there will be societal consequences for making these claims.

What consequences? concrete real world examples please

 

[TracerBullet]

Gay marriage has to mean happy delightful marriage, for if it means any other, then it degrades language, which is the software of your thought process.

To define gay and marriage in any other way is to corrupt your thinking.

Once you use terms, which are used in a debased manner, you partake in the debasement of our language and yourself.

Pretending gay marriage is anything other than what it is is corrupted thinking

 

[Ben Masada]

Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage

I see the legalization of gay marriage as the spear piercing on the flesh of Morality.

 

[bybee]

Pretending gay marriage is anything other than what it is is corrupted thinking

Indeed? That isn't what she was saying.
Homosexual unions are like hybrids, sterile.

 

[PureX]

Indeed? That isn't what she was saying.
Homosexual unions are like hybrids, sterile.

So are many heterosexual unions. The thing is, we humans don't have sex exclusively for procreation, nor do we marry exclusively for it. So all this insistence on procreation as some sort of natural, social, or divine definition of wedlock is nonsense.