Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[JakeStarkey]

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your bigotry is showing. Perhaps you should tuck it back in.

According to libturds, stating facts is "bigotry" and "hate."

Homosexuals are abnormal, according to the definition of the term. Sorry if that sucks for you.

And anarcho commies like you much more so. Your preached your nonsense in WWII and you would have been interned.

 

[ShackledNation]

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your bigotry is showing. Perhaps you should tuck it back in.

Normal:

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
​

Using precision in language is not an expression of bigotry.

Left handed people are not normal. Blue eyed people are not normal. You have something against them adopting?

Wrong. Blue eyes don't interfere with propagation of the species. Homosexuality does.

Obviously not, because there are more humans on earth now than ever before in history.

That doesn't prove your point. The species manages to propagate despite homosexuality, not because of it.

The fact that the species is propagating debunks your silly claim that homosexuality interferes with that. Please provide evidence that suggests the presence of gay people makes the species less likely to survive. Keep in mind that gay people are not infertile, and often raise abandoned children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

 

[ShackledNation]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between people of the opposite sex. No amount of propaganda or verbal legerdemain can change that.

And back then, the term "interracial marriage" was also an oxymoron. You are using the same failed arguments of the past. You aren't even creative about it.

 

[bripat9643]

So we should continue to prohibit children from using their dominant left hand, because some agenda informed us that left-handedness is actually perfectly fine? What are you even trying to say?

That the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of homosexuality is very similar to the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of left-handedness.

Only many, many people still hate and fear homosexuality, while being fine with left-handedness.

Homosexuality is highly correlated with disease. Over the course of humanity's rise, it would be a survival advantage to not associate with human disease factories. Homosexual avoidance likely has evolutionary advantage.

Heterosexuality is highly correlated with disease as well.

Safe sex means everyone.

Sticking your dick in some guy's asshole does not fit anyone's definition of "safe sex."

 

[bripat9643]

St. Patrick's Day occurs every March 17th. That doesn't mean that the Irish are launching a thought control agenda.

But once upon a time, they might have been. Back when there were regularly signs that said, "Irish need not apply."

Do you know that once upon a time, children were not allowed to use their dominant left hand when learning to write? Something changed that.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

It wasn't an agenda. It was an issue of how a leftie dealt with his parents. Homosexuals can tailor their relationship with their own parents as they best see fit, same too with their friends. Forcing me to comply, often under penalty of law, makes me their enemy. If left-handers forced me to comply with their agenda, and used law-fare to do so, they'd be my enemy too,.

Right handed people used to make left-handed people comply or be punished....under shady religious grounds too.

But let me add to your analogy. Are right-handed people trying to keep left-handed people from legally marrying? No? What do you think left-handed people would do, if the right-handed majority was telling them that they were perverted and they should not be allowed legal marriage? Do you think left-handed people would just be quiet...or would they have an "agenda" too?

I missed this last paragraph somehow.

No one has ever kept homosexuals from marrying. Rock Hudson was married. Dr. Sally Ride was married. Meridth Baxter-Birney was married.

How many times does this failed argument have to refuted? interracial marriage bans prohibited a black person from marrying a white person. But nobody was kept from marrying, because everybody could still marry someone of their same race, right?

The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between people of the opposite sex. No amount of propaganda or verbal legerdemain can change that.

And back then, the term "interracial marriage" was also an oxymoron. You are using the same failed arguments of the past. You aren't even creative about it.

Wrong again. The color of your skin does not affect anyone's ability to reproduce, so it's irrelevant to the institution of marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because being left handed was a severe handicap. Perhaps the cure was misguided, but malice towards the left-handed wasn't the motivation. We also used to put leaches on people who were ill.

How was it a handicap?

Unless you mean being considered a sign of the devil is a "handicap."

Everything in this world is made for right-handed people. Golf clubs, baseball gloves, guns, cars, etc. It was more-so in the past than it is now.

Agreed. Scissors, hand-shaking, and perhaps the worst when I was growing up, those pop-up small desks in the auditorium we did our standardized testing on....you had to be a contortionist to write left-handed on those things.

So now we're back onto the "born that way" false premise again. You guys just recycle through this stuff over and over and over. Whatever works at the moment...at the time. Snow job. Smoke and mirrors. Fake it till you make it. Isn't that the plan?

No one participating in this discussion has said a thing about whether homosexuality is genetic, so your whine is misplaced.

 

[Silhouette]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction. The fetishes run the gamut. Nobody is born wanting to have sex with dead people, for example. At yet a necrophiliac would swear they were 'born that way'.

 

[ShackledNation]

So we should continue to prohibit children from using their dominant left hand, because some agenda informed us that left-handedness is actually perfectly fine? What are you even trying to say?

That the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of homosexuality is very similar to the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of left-handedness.

Only many, many people still hate and fear homosexuality, while being fine with left-handedness.

Homosexuality is highly correlated with disease. Over the course of humanity's rise, it would be a survival advantage to not associate with human disease factories. Homosexual avoidance likely has evolutionary advantage.

Heterosexuality is highly correlated with disease as well.

Safe sex means everyone.

Sticking your dick in some guy's asshole does not fit anyone's definition of "safe sex."

Says you, and your made up definition of safe-sex which you are now equivocating with "heterosexual sex." Back in reality, safe sex does not discriminate between anuses (male or female mind you!) and vaginas.

 

[ShackledNation]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction.

No evidence of that whatsoever, and the premise itself is irrational. The fact that so many gay people try to be straight and avoid gay behavior before finally accepting it completely proves otherwise.

 

[AmericanFirst]

AmericanFirst flounders and the bounders away.

The social cons and far right are losing this contest hands down and know it.

I didn't flounder or bounder away. Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction.

No evidence of that whatsoever, and the premise itself is irrational. The fact that so many gay people try to be straight and avoid gay behavior before finally accepting it completely proves otherwise.

Abnormal same sex is a choice.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Not false. Nothing but a choice.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, at most:

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction. The fetishes run the gamut. Nobody is born wanting to have sex with dead people, for example. At yet a necrophiliac would swear they were 'born that way'.

 

[bripat9643]

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your bigotry is showing. Perhaps you should tuck it back in.

According to libturds, stating facts is "bigotry" and "hate."

Homosexuals are abnormal, according to the definition of the term. Sorry if that sucks for you.

And anarcho commies like you much more so. Your preached your nonsense in WWII and you would have been interned.

I would have been imprisoned if I said homosexuality is abnormal?

I hardly think so.

 

[bripat9643]

So we should continue to prohibit children from using their dominant left hand, because some agenda informed us that left-handedness is actually perfectly fine? What are you even trying to say?

That the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of homosexuality is very similar to the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of left-handedness.

Only many, many people still hate and fear homosexuality, while being fine with left-handedness.

Homosexuality is highly correlated with disease. Over the course of humanity's rise, it would be a survival advantage to not associate with human disease factories. Homosexual avoidance likely has evolutionary advantage.

Heterosexuality is highly correlated with disease as well.

Safe sex means everyone.

Sticking your dick in some guy's asshole does not fit anyone's definition of "safe sex."

Says you, and your made up definition of safe-sex which you are now equivocating with "heterosexual sex." Back in reality, safe sex does not discriminate between anuses (male or female mind you!) and vaginas.

homosexuals made up the definition of "safe sex," and it's utterly bogus. According to their definition, you can stick your dick anywhere you want and it's "safe" so long as you are wearing a condom. Nothing could be more wrong.

 

[ShackledNation]

The false premise is that sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Sexual orientation is a compulsive behavior. A learned addiction.

No evidence of that whatsoever, and the premise itself is irrational. The fact that so many gay people try to be straight and avoid gay behavior before finally accepting it completely proves otherwise.

Abnormal same sex is a choice.

Sexual orientation does not require having sex.

 

[ShackledNation]

So we should continue to prohibit children from using their dominant left hand, because some agenda informed us that left-handedness is actually perfectly fine? What are you even trying to say?

That the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of homosexuality is very similar to the agenda to normalize the perfectly normal orientation of left-handedness.

Only many, many people still hate and fear homosexuality, while being fine with left-handedness.

Homosexuality is highly correlated with disease. Over the course of humanity's rise, it would be a survival advantage to not associate with human disease factories. Homosexual avoidance likely has evolutionary advantage.

Heterosexuality is highly correlated with disease as well.

Safe sex means everyone.

Sticking your dick in some guy's asshole does not fit anyone's definition of "safe sex."

Says you, and your made up definition of safe-sex which you are now equivocating with "heterosexual sex." Back in reality, safe sex does not discriminate between anuses (male or female mind you!) and vaginas.

homosexuals made up the definition of "safe sex," and it's utterly bogus. According to their definition, you can stick your dick anywhere you want and it's "safe" so long as you are wearing a condom. Nothing could be more wrong.

You deny that condoms reduce the risk of contracting STIs? Really?

By the way, that is nobody's definition of safe-sex.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If it's about the kids, same-sex marriage should be encouraged just as much as opposite-sex marriage. All valid studies show that children with same-sex parents fare better or worse than their peers raised by opposite-sex parents.

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents Gays Lesbians Same-Sex Marriage Advantages of Gay Parenting Gay Adoption
New Study Confirms Same-Sex Couples Make Great Parents ThinkProgress

But, of course, having children or planing to have children--or even being able to have children--is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license in a single state.

Wrong. Those studies are anything but "valid." They are all fatally flawed.

Feel free to point out what makes them "fatally flawed." Perhaps you are not aware, but calling something "fatally flawed" and leaving it at that is not actually an argument.

Environmentalists always point to oil-company funded research and call in invalid and corrupt due to the associations of the researchers and their involvement with oil companies.

Same process at work with homosexual normalization research. Almost all research in the field is done by advocates of homosexuals. The sample sizes are small and biasing the conclusion by monkeying around with the study design is a very effective tactic. To illustrate my point, I'll pick apart one study for you.

CNN reports on this Lesbian study:

A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.​

Looks OK so far. Compare one group against a control group. Good design. Keep in mind that everything here hinges on comparison to PEERS.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.
​

Only 78 couples in the sample. That spells trouble, but let's work with it. So they mention the lesbians conceived with sperm donations, so we can assume that the peer group used the same method.

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."​

How come the reporter isn't causing a big stink about the funding as is usually the case with oil company funded environmental research? well, we know that reporters are biased so that likely explains why there is no mention of concern. Still, let's give the research the benefit of the doubt.

"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."
​

Let's see how peer review works in this field. In my field politics plays a very small role. How lenient will the peer reviewers be with the quality of the research?

Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."
​

I can't let this pass. This is very biased reporting. The reporter makes note of controversy and so she doesn't find academics who will criticize this paper, instead she SEEKS out a bible group to offer the counter-viewpoint. While this doesn't tell us anything about the research, it certainly tells us that the reporter is a partisan.

Gartrell started the study in 1986. She recruited subjects through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers throughout metro Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California, and Washington.

The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old.
​

Now some more details about the study design. The group is self-selected. That's the first filter. Next the selection restricts the range of subjects to those who frequent book stores. What kind of people frequent book stores? Dumb people? Meth addicts? Maybe intelligent people or those who value reading?

The group is further restricted to residents of Boston, D.C. and San Francisco. What kinds of lesbians live there? What kind of school environment is found in those cities? What kind of cultural environment characterizes those cities.

They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress.

To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.

The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.

The results surprised Gartrell.
​

More information on the study. I'm not going to get into the problems that arise from questionnaire based reports because the big action is elsewhere.

Look at the control group. The appropriate control group here should be heterosexual couples, who used male sperm donors, where were recruited at book stores in Boston, D.C. and San Francisco. Instead they use non-lesbian families as a control group. All families essentially.

Sperm donors are selected from a shopping list. Women can sort by IQ, by health, by lack of mental illness, by lack of psychological problems and all of these attributes are highly heritable. The general population includes parents with all of these problems, meaning that the kids these parents have also inherit these problems.

Now remember, this study passed through peer review. This study would never pass peer review in a non-politicized field. It's shoddy work.

Compare the children of lesbians who are presumably intelligent (book store) living in a high IQ city, who have children born from sperm (likely not collected from a hobo living in on the street and quite likely from a medical student or a graduate student) and compare to the children of EVERYONE ELSE.

"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.

The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.
​

Notice how the researcher is playing innocent about the "surprising" outcome. She knew, as did I, what the outcome would be before the analysis was even completed. She "didn't expect better." She's either a liar or an idiot. I don't think she's an idiot.

"This study shows that the 17-year-old adolescents who have been reared by lesbian families are psychologically happy and high functioning," said Gartrell, a Williams distinguished scholar at the UCLA School of Law. Restrictions of child custody and reproductive technologies based on sexual orientation are not justified, she said.
​

An honest researcher doesn't politicize their research. She has no business making the statement in bold. I suspect that this "reseafch" was conducted in order to allow her the opportunity to make a political statement. Think of this like Secretary Powell going to the UN to show proof of Iraqi mobile chemical labs. Powell needed "evidence" in support of his political statement and his team produced the evidence he needed.

That's the kind of research that regularly passes peer review when the issue is homosexual parenting. Small samples sizes, selection bias, restriction of range issues, poor control group criteria, self-reporting, etc. Then comes along a Census based study which dissects an entire population and it contradicts the findings of the cooked research and well, crickets, that's what.

 

[Seawytch]

We're talking about the children's educational outcomes. If you get a 5% raise at work that doesn't translate into your kid doing 5% better in high school.

A marriage license doesn't change the QUALITY of a parent. A tax savings from a government marriage benefit doesn't change the kid's performance at school.

You would have done better to simply have remained silent than to embark on this sorry exercise of excuse making.

You don't think educational outcomes have to do with economic issues? How insulated from the world ARE you?

Did you not see in the chart I provided where un married parents fared the same whether same or opposite sex? Here, look again.

Now why is that? Because...

Getting Married Has Its Financial Benefits - WSJ