Obama Supports Gay Marriage

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Watch the Western World collapse…oh…wait. Guess not.[/quote]It has been since the 60’s. In case you haven’t noticed.
[/quote]

The collapse is always being highly exaggerated and a matter of perspective. In case you hadn’t noticed. [/quote]

Seeing as China’s GDP surpassed the U.S.'s and they are in the process of taking control of the financial system by buying up U.S. debt, I’d say it’s caving in for the West at least. [/quote]
China only owns about 9% of our debt. American banks hold the vast majority.[/quote]You mean our communist enemy only holds 9%? Whew! I feel better already. At least our own communist government holds the vast majority. Our future is secure. Thanks.

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?[/quote]

You didn’t read the article did you?[/quote]
Actually I did read the article. I just thought it was bogus.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean. The author didn’t make the claim that gays are pedophiles. In fact, “Today, I am unaware of any gay rights group that supports or condones NAMBLA or its goals.” Why not just admit you didn’t read the article?

Giving someone else equal rights does not infringe or take away rights from you, it just makes it illegal to enforce your prejudice. Simple really.


http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn’t hold water.

Here’s a summary:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Gay marriage will give everyone twice as many options for people to marry, obviously this will decrease hetero marriage when people switch to the other side after seeing how cool and accepted gay people now are.[/quote]

Giving up huh?

Well, I don’t blame you, you’re on the wrong side of the issue.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

faux dialogue]

[/quote]

I get tired of correcting you - there’s no sport it in anymore - but let me correct your faux-dialogue with my own:

Raj: There’s no qualititative difference in raising a kid in a straight household or a gay household. Here’s a Wikipedia entry that explains it.

TB: Yeah, but those studies haven’t been around very long…

Raj: Yeah, but I have a Wikpedia entry that says so and I conveniently ignore the parts of the Wikipedia enttry that notes there is some criticism over the sampling and truncated time frame.

TB: Well, setting aside those flaws, that isn’t the point anyway - the best arrangement for kids is a traditional marriage, bar none.

Raj: But Wikipedia says…

TB: But nothing - are you aware of any studies that contradict your claim that there is no difference in children being raised in the alternative household?

Raj: [silence]

TB: I ask you, are you aware of any studies that say that children are best served - that is, best served - being raised in a one-man, one-woman low-conflict marriage?

Raj: [silence]

SufiAndy: Translation: purple, because aliens don’t wear hats! I win!

There are studies - as if we need them - confirming this basic fact of life. That you don’t have the sense to seek them out and learn is not my problem to fix.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Watch the Western World collapse…oh…wait. Guess not.[/quote]It has been since the 60’s. In case you haven’t noticed.
[/quote]

The collapse is always being highly exaggerated and a matter of perspective. In case you hadn’t noticed. [/quote]

Seeing as China’s GDP surpassed the U.S.'s and they are in the process of taking control of the financial system by buying up U.S. debt, I’d say it’s caving in for the West at least. [/quote]
China only owns about 9% of our debt. American banks hold the vast majority.[/quote]You mean our communist enemy only holds 9%? Whew! I feel better already. At least our own communist government holds the vast majority. Our future is secure. Thanks.
[/quote]
Hey, I’m just pointing it out. I’m not happy about it either. Our gov is fucking things up so badly on every front I have no doubt things will only continue to spin out of control.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Giving someone else equal rights does not infringe or take away rights from you, it just makes it illegal to enforce your prejudice. Simple really.


http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn’t hold water.

Here’s a summary:
…[/quote]A COURT IN HAWAII!!! WE’RE SAVED!!! Man am I ever glad this is over now. This topic was really startin to wear me out.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?[/quote]

You didn’t read the article did you?[/quote]
Actually I did read the article. I just thought it was bogus.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean. The author didn’t make the claim that gays are pedophiles. In fact, “Today, I am unaware of any gay rights group that supports or condones NAMBLA or its goals.” Why not just admit you didn’t read the article?[/quote]
Admitted. Only read about half in a hurry. Just reread entire article and agree. Thanks for calling me out, I appreciate it.

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:<<< have no doubt things will only continue to spin out of control.
[/quote]Not as long as we continue to enact utterly essential improvements to our society like gay “marriage”. We’ll be just fine as long as we continue to relentless pursue absolute distinction-less egalitarian equality for absolutely everybody at all costs. Have no fear. Can’t you how much stronger we’re getting everyday. Stiff upper lip ol boy. Our best days are long go… I mean ahead of us.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Raj: Yeah, but I have a Wikpedia entry that says so and I conveniently ignore the parts of the Wikipedia enttry that notes there is some criticism over the sampling and truncated time frame.

TB: Well, setting aside those flaws, that isn’t the point anyway - the best arrangement for kids is a traditional marriage, bar none.[/quote]

Actually I didn’t ignore it and looked at the actual cited sources. The last paragraph under consensus was from a source in 2005 and doesn’t take into account the landmark study in 2010 I posted. It also says:

"In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood.

If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage childrenâ??s psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful."[5]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

TB: But nothing - are you aware of any studies that contradict your claim that there is no difference in children being raised in the alternative household?

Raj: [silence][/quote]

I said no. Funny how I’m supposed to provide evidence for YOUR assertion.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

TB: I ask you, are you aware of any studies that say that children are best served - that is, best served - being raised in a one-man, one-woman low-conflict marriage?

Raj: [silence][/quote]

And I answered that LGBT parents have been demonstrated to be equally as good as the parents.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

There are studies - as if we need them - confirming this basic fact of life. That you don’t have the sense to seek them out and learn is not my problem to fix.[/quote]

  1. Then for the millionth time: show me them

  2. By this statement you are saying thousands of medical professionals lack the common sense that you and apparently conservatives only have. Strange huh?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Giving someone else equal rights does not infringe or take away rights from you, it just makes it illegal to enforce your prejudice. Simple really.


http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, a court in Hawaii has recently heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn’t hold water.

Here’s a summary:
…[/quote]A COURT IN HAWAII!!! WE’RE SAVED!!! Man am I ever glad this is over now. This topic was really startin to wear me out.
[/quote]

Read the link and try again, Tirib; try to not make a fool of yourself this time.

This is why I originally posted the argumentation from the article; the mods must’ve thought it was a but long however, and trimmed it to what you seen. You’re gonna have to put a wee bit O’ work into actually reading it, I’m afraid.

Do try…

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Actually I didn’t ignore it and looked at the actual cited sources. The last paragraph under consensus was from a source in 2005 and doesn’t take into account the landmark study in 2010 I posted. It also says:

"In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated: "Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood.[/quote]

Ok, so the statistical comparison was done for gay fathers as compared to the data on straight fathers parenting as single fathers, or married? That disctinction matters, and we have our answer below.

And here is the hedge - what’s being compared are outcomes based on single parenting, not married parenting.

And that’s why you always read the fine print on sociological “studies”. You have to insure there is apples-to-apples, and here there is not.

The only thing that matters are statistical comparisons between children raised by married couples, or the closest approximation. And the 2010 Rosenfeld study only tracks kids through primary school - and we are back at square one: there is no long-term study that can support the conclusions that advocates so desperately try to make.

You’re the one challenging the institution, not me - don’t you think you should know if there are studies out there that contradict your claim if you are the challenger? 1) Then for the millionth time: show me them

Nope. And you’re awfully generous to include social workers and psychologists as medical professionals. You’ve seen where the trouble is in these “studies”.

And now, over to you, Center for Law and Policy:

Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households. Compared to children who are raised by their married parents, children in other family types are more likely to achieve lower levels of education, to become teen parents, and to experience health, behavior, and mental health problems.

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

So, the conclusion is, by this group (and others), that this arrangement is superior. It doesn’t say that other arrangements (i.e., step-parenting) are horrendous, it simply confirms that the biological parents, low-conflict household is the best. And it is.

They go on:

The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage helps to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thriveâ??consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society.

Exactly. We don’t have a policy that encourages step-parenting or co-habiting, unmarried heterosexual parenting - even if they don’t categorically lead to horrendous outcomes - we have a policy that supports marriage. And why? Because marriage produces the best outcome for kids on average. It gets the blue ribbon.

We have no reason to support alternatives that are inferior, because we vastly prefer children to be raised in the unit of the biological parents. There are lots of alternatives - that doesn’t mean we desire to “equalize” them to the best situation for children, when they clearly are not “equal”.

In short, we want one arrangement above all others. It’s that simple. And our public policy should reflect that.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

faux dialogue]

[/quote]

I get tired of correcting you - there’s no sport it in anymore - but let me correct your faux-dialogue with my own:

Raj: There’s no qualititative difference in raising a kid in a straight household or a gay household. Here’s a Wikipedia entry that explains it.

TB: Yeah, but those studies haven’t been around very long…

Raj: Yeah, but I have a Wikpedia entry that says so and I conveniently ignore the parts of the Wikipedia enttry that notes there is some criticism over the sampling and truncated time frame.

TB: Well, setting aside those flaws, that isn’t the point anyway - the best arrangement for kids is a traditional marriage, bar none.

Raj: But Wikipedia says…

TB: But nothing - are you aware of any studies that contradict your claim that there is no difference in children being raised in the alternative household?

Raj: [silence]

TB: I ask you, are you aware of any studies that say that children are best served - that is, best served - being raised in a one-man, one-woman low-conflict marriage?

Raj: [silence]

SufiAndy: Translation: purple, because aliens don’t wear hats! I win!

There are studies - as if we need them - confirming this basic fact of life. That you don’t have the sense to seek them out and learn is not my problem to fix.[/quote]

Here is a more accurate version of the dialogue.

Raj: Blah blah blah

TB: Blah blah blah

Me: Blah blah blah

Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.[/quote]

Given how many dumb posts you’ve been responsible for here, don’t you think it would be a good idea to quit while you’re ahead?

By the way, still waiting on a short summary of that glorious time in human history where there existed no racism. Thanks, looking forward to it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Ok, so the statistical comparison was done for gay fathers as compared to the data on straight fathers parenting as single fathers, or married? That disctinction matters, and we have our answer below. [/quote]

No, that’s just the area of LGBT parenting where there is a sampling issue.

" Rosenfeld’s study, “the first to use large-sample nationally representative data, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies.”[33]"

“Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]”

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And here is the hedge - what’s being compared are outcomes based on single parenting, not married parenting.

And that’s why you always read the fine print on sociological “studies”. You have to insure there is apples-to-apples, and here there is not.

The only thing that matters are statistical comparisons between children raised by married couples, or the closest approximation. And the 2010 Rosenfeld study only tracks kids through primary school - and we are back at square one: there is no long-term study that can support the conclusions that advocates so desperately try to make. [/quote]

Read above.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

You’re the one challenging the institution, not me - don’t you think you should know if there are studies out there that contradict your claim if you are the challenger? [/quote]

No the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Nope. And you’re awfully generous to include social workers and psychologists as medical professionals. You’ve seen where the trouble is in these “studies”. [/quote]

I am? Last I checked psychologists are doctors. Furthermore social workers are experts in this field and that the findings are based on scientific research.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And now, over to you, Center for Law and Policy:

Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households. Compared to children who are raised by their married parents, children in other family types are more likely to achieve lower levels of education, to become teen parents, and to experience health, behavior, and mental health problems.

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

So, the conclusion is, by this group (and others), that this arrangement is superior. It doesn’t say that other arrangements (i.e., step-parenting) are horrendous, it simply confirms that the biological parents, low-conflict household is the best. And it is.

They go on:

The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage helps to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thriveâ??consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society.

Exactly. We don’t have a policy that encourages step-parenting or co-habiting, unmarried heterosexual parenting - even if they don’t categorically lead to horrendous outcomes - we have a policy that supports marriage. And why? Because marriage produces the best outcome for kids on average. It gets the blue ribbon.

We have no reason to support alternatives that are inferior, because we vastly prefer children to be raised in the unit of the biological parents. There are lots of alternatives - that doesn’t mean we desire to “equalize” them to the best situation for children, when they clearly are not “equal”.

In short, we want one arrangement above all others. It’s that simple. And our public policy should reflect that.[/quote]

First of all, this is one study. Secondly, this study doesn’t bother to compare same sex couples to married couples, only divorced parents. When this has been done as shown above, no deficit has been able to be demonstrated.

“Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42 Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.”

So how can this study even act as evidence when it doesn’t even bother to compare low conflict same sex couples directly to low conflict straight married couples?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states.[/quote]

Based on polls this is true. It appears inevitable.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No, that’s just the area of LGBT parenting where there is a sampling issue. [/quote]

Yeah, that’s exactly the problem I just highlighted - it is a sampling issue that skews the information and conclusion.

[quote]" Rosenfeld’s study, “the first to use large-sample nationally representative data, shows that children raised by same-sex couples have no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school. The core finding here offers a measure of validation for the prior, and much-debated, small-sample studies.”[33]"

“Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]”[/quote]

I just addressed this, genius - I actually read the Rosenfeld study. I just commented about its limitations. Do something other than grab a publicly-edited Wikipedia page - you’re wasting my time.

Typically, yes, but we aren’t starting from scratch on this issue. But it’s moot in any event - I provided you the material you can’t be bothered to go find yourself.

Yep. Psychologists are not doctors, they can’t prescribe medicine.

No, it hasn’t - that was precisely the point. There has been no durable study - the Rosenfeld study only goes through primary school and was limited to primary school performance. That’s it. No long-term studies dealing with development, interpersonal relationships, educational attainment, financial outcomes, rates of divorce - all the things you’d need to examine in an apples-to-apples comparison.

In any event, it’s clear you didn’t read the material - it was not focused purely on situations of divorce.

The study speaks for itself - you ready to refute it? Is it wrong? If it is, tell me why.

Here’s the thing - you’re a Wikipedia ranger. You don’t know the topic, you haven’t thought about the topic. You don’t know what the studies say or how they interact. You go grab a Wikipedia entry on a complex topic and wave it around like it solves the issue.

It’s pathetic.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Yeah, that’s exactly the problem I just highlighted - it is a sampling issue that skews the information and conclusion.[/quote]

And I explained there’s only a sampling issue with certain arrangements - Single gay fathers, non-white lesbian mothers. There isn’t a sampling issue on same-sex couples in general.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I just addressed this, genius - I actually read the Rosenfeld study. I just commented about its limitations. Do something other than grab a publicly-edited Wikipedia page - you’re wasting my time. [/quote]

No you didn’t read above.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No long-term studies dealing with development, interpersonal relationships, educational attainment, financial outcomes, rates of divorce - all the things you’d need to examine in an apples-to-apples comparison.[/quote]

And as I posted earlier:

“If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.”[7]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

In any event, it’s clear you didn’t read the material - it was not focused purely on situations of divorce. [/quote]

No it’s not, but same-sex couples are only compared to divorced parents in the study. There is NO comparison made between low conflict straight marriages and low conflict same sex couples.

The only conclusion they made w/ respect to same-sex couples is that children of these arrangements are no worse off than divorced parents. And this link is also posted on wikipedia. So that makes you a “wikipedia ranger” too. Whatever the hell that is.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The study speaks for itself - you ready to refute it? Is it wrong? If it is, tell me why.[/quote]

Read above

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Here’s the thing - you’re a Wikipedia ranger. You don’t know the topic, you haven’t thought about the topic. You don’t know what the studies say or how they interact. You go grab a Wikipedia entry on a complex topic and wave it around like it solves the issue.

It’s pathetic.[/quote]

No, I look at the citations before I post. If wikipedia makes you so uncomfortable I’ll post the link outright and you can look for the paragraph I’m referring to in the 50 pages of text.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states.[/quote]

Based on polls this is true. It appears inevitable. [/quote]

It is just a poll so who knows but trends say its gaining support. Obviously those against this will try to discredit that somehow but hopefully they are not too old and live long enough to be proved wrong.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Summary: More people are coming around to the idea of gay marriage and it will eventually be accepted and made legal in most states. One day our children will look back and think how dumb we were for it being illegal in the first place, so discussions like this are a waste of time.[/quote]

Given how many dumb posts you’ve been responsible for here, don’t you think it would be a good idea to quit while you’re ahead?

By the way, still waiting on a short summary of that glorious time in human history where there existed no racism. Thanks, looking forward to it.[/quote]

Back when people lived in small tribes and were not exposed to people who were different than them.