A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

No but when study after study shows this rosy color of abnormal I tend to shut them off. Why bother if the studies fit a modern day agenda supporting gays>?

In other words, you will ignore anything that disagrees with you.

Did you even look at the links? Or are you afraid to see any evidence contrary to your small-minded beliefs?

I want to see facts not an agenda motivate study to support the gay life style.

Did you look at the studies in the links?

 

[WinterBorn]

I make no claim but state what is normally seen as fact abnormal is not nor has it ever been stable. Unless you are redefining what is normal and abnormal.

The problem is that you are using "abnormal" to describe one single aspect of the person, and then making the huge leap of nonsense to try and infer that makes their entire existence abnormal.

While their sexual orientation can be called abnormal, owing to the relatively small number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, it does not address their ability to form stable relationships.

I defy you to show any evidence that it does. (and remember, you said abnormal has never been stable)

It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.

In some ways you are correct. But that does not mean they cannot be in a stable relationship. You are attempting to make a corrolation that does not exist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In other words, you will ignore anything that disagrees with you.

Did you even look at the links? Or are you afraid to see any evidence contrary to your small-minded beliefs?

I want to see facts not an agenda motivate study to support the gay life style.

Did you look at the studies in the links?

I did a google search before you posted the links Thats all I will say about that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I want to see facts not an agenda motivate study to support the gay life style.

Did you look at the studies in the links?

I did a google search before you posted the links Thats all I will say about that.

The links I posted showed information gathered from solid studies. Pity you decide in advance what you want to see and ignore everything else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you look at the studies in the links?

I did a google search before you posted the links Thats all I will say about that.

The links I posted showed information gathered from solid studies. Pity you decide in advance what you want to see and ignore everything else.

Solid studies with a gay agenda in mind NO SELL.

 

[WinterBorn]

I did a google search before you posted the links Thats all I will say about that.

The links I posted showed information gathered from solid studies. Pity you decide in advance what you want to see and ignore everything else.

Solid studies with a gay agenda in mind NO SELL.

You disagree with the studies and call them agenda based. But the only evidence you have is the results?

Nice scientific approach you have there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The links I posted showed information gathered from solid studies. Pity you decide in advance what you want to see and ignore everything else.

Solid studies with a gay agenda in mind NO SELL.

You disagree with the studies and call them agenda based. But the only evidence you have is the results?

Nice scientific approach you have there.

It is agenda motivated no sell.

 

[WinterBorn]

Solid studies with a gay agenda in mind NO SELL.

You disagree with the studies and call them agenda based. But the only evidence you have is the results?

Nice scientific approach you have there.

It is agenda motivated no sell.

Is it? I find it odd that you state this as a fact. The links showed studies done by trained sociologists, psychologists and other trained people. But the results are all you needed to proclaim them bogus.

Let me know when you have some evidence and not just hatred. It will make for a more enlightened discussion.

Right now what we have is me posting evidence and you saying "That is wrong!"

 

[koshergrl]

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:
The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

 

[koshergrl]

" In the next paragraph, Patterson qualifies her statement. Echoing Cramer's concern from a decade earlier, she writes: "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. . . . Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed."[4] The years have passed since Patterson's admission of the inadequacy of homosexual parenting studies, and we still await definitive, objective research substantiating her claims. In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly:
Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.[5]"


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

 

[koshergrl]

"
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[45]
Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[46]"


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

 

[Montrovant]

I make no claim but state what is normally seen as fact abnormal is not nor has it ever been stable. Unless you are redefining what is normal and abnormal.

The problem is that you are using "abnormal" to describe one single aspect of the person, and then making the huge leap of nonsense to try and infer that makes their entire existence abnormal.

While their sexual orientation can be called abnormal, owing to the relatively small number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, it does not address their ability to form stable relationships.

I defy you to show any evidence that it does. (and remember, you said abnormal has never been stable)

It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.

There are a lot of sexual practices that are not normal, in that they are uncommon. Does any heterosexual who participates in a sexual practice that is not the norm automatically have an unstable relationship?

What about outside of sex? I imagine most people have at least SOME characteristic that is outside the norm. Does any abnormality in a person prevent a stable relationship?

*awaits unrelated or unexplainable response*

 

[WinterBorn]

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:
The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

Now bigrednc, take note of her post. This is how you argue against links. She presents clear arguments, posts information that backs up her claims, and does more than just say "that is a lie".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem is that you are using "abnormal" to describe one single aspect of the person, and then making the huge leap of nonsense to try and infer that makes their entire existence abnormal.

While their sexual orientation can be called abnormal, owing to the relatively small number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, it does not address their ability to form stable relationships.

I defy you to show any evidence that it does. (and remember, you said abnormal has never been stable)

It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.

There are a lot of sexual practices that are not normal, in that they are uncommon. Does any heterosexual who participates in a sexual practice that is not the norm automatically have an unstable relationship?

What about outside of sex? I imagine most people have at least SOME characteristic that is outside the norm. Does any abnormality in a person prevent a stable relationship?

*awaits unrelated or unexplainable response*

Let's redefine what has been normal and make it abnormal and what was once abnormal and make it normal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:
The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:
The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

Now bigrednc, take note of her post. This is how you argue against links. She presents clear arguments, posts information that backs up her claims, and does more than just say "that is a lie".

Well what can I say I was right. hows that?

 

[WinterBorn]

"Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families."


"Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:
The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1]
Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households."


Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk

Now bigrednc, take note of her post. This is how you argue against links. She presents clear arguments, posts information that backs up her claims, and does more than just say "that is a lie".

Well what can I say I was right. hows that?

How is that? lol Still wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now bigrednc, take note of her post. This is how you argue against links. She presents clear arguments, posts information that backs up her claims, and does more than just say "that is a lie".

Well what can I say I was right. hows that?

How is that? lol Still wrong.

What koshergrl posted coincides with what I have been saying even without posting a link I must be a very smart man to have all this information and have someone post a source that agrees with what I am saying.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not normal to want to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Never has been never will be.

There are a lot of sexual practices that are not normal, in that they are uncommon. Does any heterosexual who participates in a sexual practice that is not the norm automatically have an unstable relationship?

What about outside of sex? I imagine most people have at least SOME characteristic that is outside the norm. Does any abnormality in a person prevent a stable relationship?

*awaits unrelated or unexplainable response*

Let's redefine what has been normal and make it abnormal and what was once abnormal and make it normal.

What is normal and what is abnormal changes with every passing generation. At one point it was abnormal to own a home computer, but did that make it a bad thing?

Banning on a public level anything YOU deem as abnormal is a dangerous and unfair proposition.

(1) Because abnormal doesn't necessarily mean "bad".
(2) what's abnormal for you might be perfectly normal for someone else.

 

[koshergrl]

The argument for hetero marriage has nothing to do wtih what's normal. It has to do with protecting a institution, proven to be the most successful vehicle for raising kids, as the foundation of our civilization.