Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Brian-E]

Okay.

So to summarize: the only evidence which has been provided that children raised by same sex couples fare worse than those raised by opposite sex couples is that the numerous studies which purported to show the opposite did not all have adequate sample sizes (though some did have). And the attempt by Regnerus to carry out a study of offspring of same sex couples compared with offspring of other parents failed because of ... (wait for it) ... inadequate sample size. So he had to investigate something completely different instead.

I cannot for the life of me fathom what Regnerus has contributed to the debate on the suitability of same sex couples to be parents.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Okay.

So to summarize: the only evidence which has been provided that children raised by same sex couples fare worse than those raised by opposite sex couples is that the numerous studies which purported to show the opposite did not all have adequate sample sizes (though some did have).

Are you talking about the evidence provided by the Regnerus study, or by all studies?

[And no, they are not claiming that the only flaw in (most) previous studies was sample size. Another common flaw is self-selected samples. Nearly none of the previous studies did a random sample of the population, like Regnerus.]

And the attempt by Regnerus to carry out a study of offspring of same sex couples compared with offspring of other parents failed because of ... (wait for it) ... inadequate sample size. So he had to investigate something completely different instead.

Again, not exactly.

First, there are no offspring of "same sex couples". There can be no study of offspring of same sex couples (until science and law allow us to meddle with procreation a bit more than happens currently--and even if that happens, the sample size would probably need to be gigantic to get a random sample of sufficient size). So the study was never geared to that. It was geared to children raised at some point in their lives by same-sex couples.

Second, while the sample size was inadequate for some things, it was not inadequate for other things. Like distinguishing statistically between an arbitrary family, and those in which a parent had had a same-sex relationship. It could even compare families with divorce and families which at some point involved same-sex partners. The data there says that, even correcting for things like divorce, etc..., the children raised in such situations fared worse.

Of course, without more studies, this information says nothing politically (and Regnerus makes it clear, that wasn't his purpose anyway). It could be spinned to say that we should support gay families, to provide them stability. Or we could blame the instability on how society treats the LGBT crew. Or we could say that, more often than not, those lifestyles are damaging. etc... There is really nothing concrete. Rather, Regnerus wanted to see if the previous studies held up to a more rigorous methodology.

I cannot for the life of me fathom what Regnerus has contributed to the debate on the suitability of same sex couples to be parents.

He contributed a great deal. We now have an idea of the percentage of people who ever had a parent in a same-sex relationship. We now know how many people a truly random study would have to include to study the effects of stable LBGT parenting on children. (That is, parents who raised a child from infancy and never separated.) It tells us that the self-reporting of a self-selected group is not a good measure of the average. In particular, we find that in the population most children raised by a LGBT parent will have experienced divorce in their lives. It tells us that a child who is currently 18 or older and was raised in a home with a parent who has had a a same-sex relationship is more prone to have had negative effects on a wide scale of measures, even correcting for certain variables. etc...

In particular, it tells us that all the studies previously used to political ends were misused. That those who say studies have proven gay parenting is harmless (or even positive!) have a long way to go to prove that claim.

[Dubslow]

Dynasty Young, gay teen expelled for firing stun gun at school, sues Indianapolis district

Note: he did not fire the stun gun at anyone, just into the air.

[jasong]

I haven't read this whole thread, not really sure whether I want to, but here's my take.

The Democrats apparently want to make this a civil rights issue and equate it to simple bigotry. The problem here is that being black, a woman, having Down Syndrome, etc., ISN'T immoral. I agree that persecuting homosexuals is immoral and bad, but going the other way and treating it as 100% normal is worse.

As I've revealed in another thread, I forget the precise one, I have some rather severe sexual deviancy issues. Just like with homosexuality I may have been born this way. But Christianity teaches that man(in this instance man translates as "the human race.") was born sinful, and almost always seeks to do evil. So even if we were born with specific desires, this doesn't mean we should embrace them as healthy. My sexual desires aren't healthy, and homosexuality isn't healthy.

The Bible gives the proper response to these unhealthy desires,"Resist the devil and he must flee." Just like with alcoholism, these urges could easily come persistently for the rest of your life. My sexual urges come with the same intensity they always have, they are something I have to continuously deal with. But just like with alcoholism, it IS possible to reject them and live a healthier life.

I don't want this split off into another thread, so I won't go into the typical Christian ending, but homosexuality is not ok. It might be normal in some places, but it's also legal to beat your wife in some places, which obviously isn't ok. I'm guessing I haven't really changed any opinions or votes, but this ISN'T a political issue, it's a moral issue. We are going down a road that could potentially destroy our country. When the people have no moral compass, the country will fall.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by jasong

I haven't read this whole thread, not really sure whether I want to, but here's my take.

It's good to see you give your take. You have posted several times in this thread, but your point of view on the issue being discussed has always been obscure up until now, to me at least.

However: I'm still not entirely clear about your point of view. You evidently see it as a moral issue: that much is clear from your post. But you don't state precisely what moral issue it is. (You do talk vaguely about sexuality. But I'm not sure why sexuality is relevant here. Any light you shed on this would be very welcome.)

I see marriage as a fullfilment of lifelong love. Your Christianity is well known here, and on that basis I expect you probably agree with me (for example, 1 Corinthians 13:13 refers to faith, hope and love, love being the greatest of the three, and of course Jesus Christ taught that we should love one another). While not sharing your Christian faith, I can still appreciate some of its teachings. Are you with me here?

What precisely is the moral difficulty then with marriage between two women or two men as a commitment of love?

[Fusion_power]

I see marriage as a fullfilment of lifelong love.

1 Corinthians 13:13 refers to faith, hope and love, love being the greatest of the three, and of course Jesus Christ taught that we should love one another

You can't take pieces out of the bible to support your position without also taking these parts too. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

I haven't yet seen how two women or two men can "become one flesh".

DarJones

[chappy]

I see that verse doesn't say that "Each," "Every," or "All" man or men will cleave to a woman. Just that some will. It's okay though to take bits and pieces of verses on this subject--since this verse's reasoning is based on the notion that God took a bit and piece out of Adam and made Eve out of it.

Setting aside all the silliness involved in transcribing and translating an oral folk legend and pretending thousands of years later to still believe it literally occurred despite all the evidence that it is just a myth, I'll stick with the words of Jesus on the subject.

Notice when asked about it, Jesus said keep the commandments. Which Commandments? The ones that applied from man against man: Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal....love your neighbor.

Which did he not say? Don't each shellfish, don't have sex with your wife during a menstrual cycle, don't wear garments made out of two fabrics, don't have homosexual sex. Why the difference?

These were ritual transgressions. Ones that would keep you from being able to enter the temple and worship. These were to be removed by the atonement.

The fact is that Jesus hardly says anything about sex--some muddled divorce crap and the silly notion that looking at a woman lustily is just as bad as actually screwing her. (though he does say you shouldn't covet your neighbor's ass.)

And I'm pretty sure that a google image search with Safe Search turned off will give you plenty of examples of Man on Man one fleshness.

[Xyzzy]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=34659

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

You can't take pieces out of the bible to support your position without also taking these parts too. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Rather than attempting to use the bible to support my position (I wouldn't attempt anything so silly!), I was trying to write in terms which might prompt jasong to explain his position more clearly. If jasong responds to my post, I hope to take it further from there.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Rather than attempting to use the bible to support my position (I wouldn't attempt anything so silly!), I was trying to write in terms which might prompt jasong to explain his position more clearly. If jasong responds to my post, I hope to take it further from there.

Aren't we just arguing about the traditional meaning of "marriage", namely a tryst twixt a man and a woman with the intention of spawning prodigy?

Just change it to the Newspeak "Civil Partnership" and this thread would not exist.

The desirability or otherwise of anal sex or cunning linguistics is a different ball game entirely

David
x

[pinhodecarlos]

Should Legal Gays be Married?

Yes, more women out there alone.....lol