Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Sexual Orientation
Comments
-
Fanny Cradock;
I've no problems with civil unions that grant gay/ lesbian couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. However, the notion of gay/ lesbian marriage within the context of Christianity is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense. However, given the inevitable, I think I would want strong assurances that institutions and individuals conducting marriages would be allowed to abstain from preforming marriages if they conscientiously object to such unions. This seems like an adequate compromise.
But we are talking in a civil context, in a Christian context marriage has a whole different meaning 'tho in a biblical context?
Institutions can make their own rules as to what ceremonies they perform, however individuals in a state or civil role should leave their personal convictions at home and do the job they were hired to do.
This isn't rocket science.0 -
philologos wrote: »There's a lot of research that suggests that the nuclear family is most beneficial to children. There's also been significant research done into the differing roles of mothers and fathers.
There has also been "significant research" done into the existence of the loch ness monster. Alarm bells should go off in everyones head when someone like yourself mentions the existence of the research and not the conclusions of the research. Yes, significant research HAS been done on the subject and the reason you mention that fact, rather than then RESULTS of said research, is that the result do not support your claims.
This, in other words, is word play on your part. Something I am well used to watching out for in your posts. If you can not find research to support your views you simply mention that research has been done on the subject and you let the reader fall into the trap of simply assuming that means the research supports your views.
Again, the question you and your like are avoiding has been avoided since my post on the thread yesterday: What aspects of what is actually required for the healthy upbringing of a child... things like security, love, education, food, protection to name but a few.... are somehow precluded ANY given parental configuration be it single parents, straight couples, gay couples, or other groupings?
Or which thing on that list is by definition provided better by one configuration than another? Because every one else in this world of "common sense" you keep appealing to has noticed that no matter what the configuration of parents involved some are good parents and some are bad parents and there are single parents who have achieved better results than any other combination you can name, and vice versa.philologos wrote: »Do mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles to their children? - Yes, they do.
Says you. This appeal to "gender roles" I simply find archaic. Modern society is moving slowly away from such notions and you would do well to come into the present with them. There is no role any more... aside from the obvious biological limitations to do with child birth.... that either sex has to perform, is expected to perform, or must perform. Men and women are perfectly capable of doing anything the other can. The contents of ones underpants is not a predictor of how one can or will deal with children. And since there are no gender roles to aspire to, there is no gender configuration required or "ideal" in the upbringing of a child.
You keep saying there are such roles. You never actually list or elaborate on what they are. You just want people to accept by fiat that what you say is fact and they exist. Being asked to actually expound upon them is just a pesky nuisance you are keen to brush aside. Comically you tend to do so in posts where you accuse OTHERS of "fobbing off". I guess the best way, in your mind, to hide your own fobbing off is to imagine it in others.0 -
But we are talking in a civil context, in a Christian context marriage has a whole different meaning 'tho in a biblical context?
Institutions can make their own rules as to what ceremonies they perform, however individuals in a state or civil role should leave their personal convictions at home and do the job they were hired to do.
This isn't rocket science.
Yes, I tend to agree. That is why I am confused by your post that reads like a mini lecture. My point was rather simple: If there is a "conscience clause" then it seems like a reasonable compromise.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 79126
Fanny Cradock wrote: »The first is entitled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. What I found interesting about this paper was that actually asked the children of gay parents (19 years and up) what they thought.
Myself and sonic are quite happy to tell you what we think, though we've probably done so already0 -
Personally I think your attitude in this is a good one. If you look at the Scottish proposals for the law on same sex marriage church weddings are included, unlike the British proposal, though there is a conscientious objection clause.Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, I tend to agree. That is why I am confused by your post that reads like a mini lecture. My point was rather simple: If there is a "conscience clause" then it seems like a reasonable compromise.
I personally think the better option would be to legislate for civil weddings but allow churches to opt in rather than making them opt out. This would, I feel, general less legal challenges and aggravation, though I understand the Scottish parliament is probably trying to make a statement rather than simply make a law.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
From the UK government consultation process, outlining the proposals for same-sex marriage legislation (my bold):Fanny Cradock wrote: »OK, I'll throw my cards down on the table and say that I really don't know what to think about the whole marriage debate. I've no problems with civil unions that grant gay/ lesbian couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. However, the notion of gay/ lesbian marriage within the context of Christianity is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense. However, given the inevitable, I think I would want strong assurances that institutions and individuals conducting marriages would be allowed to abstain from preforming marriages if they conscientiously object to such unions. This seems like an adequate compromise.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
This consultation sets out the government's proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.
The key proposals of the consultation are:- to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
- to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
- to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
- civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
- individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage
0 -
philologos wrote: »I've read what he posted, I think it is mistaken though. There's plenty that suggests that mothers and fathers have unique and distinct roles in respect to their children. Either that is right, or that is wrong. There's not much room for a via media as far as I see it.
From oldrnwisr's post:
The quote above is from The Role of the Father in Child Development by Michael Lamb. It is a meta-analysis of the existing body of research on the subject of parental influence on the outcomes of children.
Do you know what a meta-analysis is (genuine question)? It's not a single piece of research, it's not simply a review, it's a tool used to combine and understand results across many different studies.
You say "This paper shows that a Mum and Dad are best".
Someone else "This paper shows that Dad and Dad (or Mum and Mum) are equally good, if not better".
A meta-analysis combines both studies to reach a consensus view. The consensus view across a large number of studies is (and again, I quote oldrnwisr):
The research has repeatedly shown that the characteristics that actually have an impact on the outcomes of children are not gender-related.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, I tend to agree. That is why I am confused by your post that reads like a mini lecture. My point was rather simple: If there is a "conscience clause" then it seems like a reasonable compromise.
I agree. But I would, in that case, prefer it if Christians and others dumped the word 'marriage' altogether in favour of another term that carries the meaning that 'marriage' used to have.the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: (Oxford English Dictionary)
My preferred option would be to keep the word 'marriage' to mean what it currently means.
I fully support civil partnerships that, in respect to all legal issues such as inheritance and tax, are indistinguishable from marriage. But I don't see that we need to redefine a word that carries a particular meaning for most people.
I might compare this to the notion that pork chops should be reclassified as a vegetable. I would have no difficulty if pork chops are taxed the same as vegetables - but to reclassify them would not enhance the pork chop or make it healthier, it would simply render the word 'vegetable' as less meaningful.
However, the push to bastardise the English language as regards the word 'marriage' is so concerted that I doubt if there's much point even opposing it anymore.
I hope the Churches have the balls at this point to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let 'marriage' be something the State does - and then it is none of the Church's business whether the State chooses to allow people to marry any one person, any group of people, their pets, or their bicycles. Let's remove the word 'marriage' from our Bibles (just as revised translations change other words that have lost their original meanings) and let churches come up with a new ceremony that refers to the idea of a one man and one woman making a lifelong commitment to each other in the presence of God.0 -
I agree entirely. What new ceremony name are you going to suggest so I can start a campaign to have it extended to same-sex couples?I hope the Churches have the balls at this point to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let 'marriage' be something the State does - and then it is none of the Church's business whether the State chooses to allow people to marry any one person, any group of people, their pets, or their bicycles. Let's remove the word 'marriage' from our Bibles (just as revised translations change other words that have lost their original meanings) and let churches come up with a new ceremony that refers to the idea of a one man and one woman making a lifelong commitment to each other in the presence of God.
As it stands in the UK, most religious marriages are not legal marriages (Church of England excepted). So, for example, Catholic marriages need to be attended by a "state" registrar, acting in a secular capacity, to have all the register and documentation formalised. Same goes for Muslim/Hindu/etc weddings, all perfectly valid in a ceremonial sense but not valid in a legal sense.0 -
I have no doubt that will follow in due course.doctoremma wrote: »I agree entirely. What new ceremony name are you going to suggest so I can start a campaign to have it extended to same-sex couples?As it stands in the UK, most religious marriages are not legal marriages (Church of England excepted). So, for example, Catholic marriages need to be attended by a "state" registrar, acting in a secular capacity, to have all the register and documentation formalised. Same goes for Muslim/Hindu/etc weddings, all perfectly valid in a ceremonial sense but not valid in a legal sense.
Boards.ie is an Irish website.
In Ireland most church weddings are performed by clergy who are registered by the State as Solemnisers.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »OK, I'll throw my cards down on the table and say that I really don't know what to think about the whole marriage debate. I've no problems with civil unions that grant gay/ lesbian couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. However, the notion of gay/ lesbian marriage within the context of Christianity is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense. However, given the inevitable, I think I would want strong assurances that institutions and individuals conducting marriages would be allowed to abstain from preforming marriages if they conscientiously object to such unions. This seems like an adequate compromise.
As for the whole "mother + father = optimal parental unit" debate, I'm again left sitting on the fence. On one hand I can well imagine that gay parents could match or surpass many straight parents. However, laws are normative and are based upon what is best for society at large.
It seems to me that some people think the worst when they consider gay parenting. And that the children raised in such home will turn out to be morally degenerate individuals. Conversely, people on the other side seem to think that homosexual parenting is largely equivalent to heterosexual parenting. To me this seems obviously false. All of this is to say nothing about which, normatively speaking, is the optimal family unit.
Below are links to two very recent research papers published in the June '12 edition of Social Science Research that I came across today.
The first is entitled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. What I found interesting about this paper was that actually asked the children of gay parents (19 years and up) what they thought.
The other is entitle Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Again, the feature I found most interesting about this bit of research was it's criticism of the sample sizes that formed the basis of previous research and also the self-selective nature of the samples.
Possibly the most well-reasoned post I’ve ever seen on the Christianity forum!
I’m gay and my best friend is a devout Christian. He is quite conservative on most issues but on this topic he parts with expectations and supports marriage for same-sex couples. It is very interesting talking to him about it – he sees the commitment, stability and sacrifice that go with relationships as a package that needs rights and protections. He says his faith in God and the equality Jesus preached are the main drivers of this opinion, as well as his acknowledgement that religious rules ought to be different to state laws. He has also read a few papers on the issue too to inform his opinion.
To him, marriage and equality are the perfect match for his conservative values and faith in Christ.
Anyway, it’s encouraging to see Christians come out in support of equality. I wish the media would focus on those that support it a little more rather than always focusing only on the naysayers.0 -
It's hardly the first time in the history of the English language for a word to change slightly (and it's really slight although same sex marriage have existed previously in history) in meaning. This doesn't constitute a bastardising of the English language, it's closer to an evolution of it.0
-
It's hardly the first time in the history of the English language for a word to change slightly (and it's really slight although same sex marriage have existed previously in history) in meaning. This doesn't constitute a bastardising of the English language, it's closer to an evolution of it.
Exactly. The definition of marriage has evolved a lot, even without the gender issue. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see an old dictionary make reference to marriages being "often arranged" in past years.0 -
Exactly. The definition of marriage has evolved a lot, even without the gender issue. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see an old dictionary make reference to marriages being "often arranged" in past years.
Actually this one is fairly recent historically speaking... :pac:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/05/18/the-definition-of-marriage-in-1886-2/
Clear bastardisation of the word... :rolleyes:What “essentials” had the couple repudiated? In their marriage ceremony Harman had declined not only to vow obedience to her husband (such a vow being repugnant both to her feminism and to her libertarian anarchism) but also to vow love unto death: “I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate.” She also declined to submerge her individuality in another’s by taking her husband’s last name: “I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.” Walker for his part vowed that “Lillian is and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we … repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.” In particular he repudiated any right as husband to control his wife’s property; he also acknowledged his “responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union.” Harman’s father added: “I do not ‘give away the bride,’ as I wish her to be always the owner of her person.”0 -
philologos wrote: »By the by, it's valid to bring up papers that discuss gender roles in parenting. If you are claiming that there is no difference between how mothers and fathers deal with their children then all of this research should be null and void and useless.
Nice strawman. I am not talking at all about the differences in how mothers and fathers deal with their children. I am talking about the parental characteristics which have an effect on the outcomes of children and how these characteristics relate to gender. Big difference.
The research, such as it is, shows that those characteristics which most influence positive child outcomes: parental warmth, attention etc. are not gender related. This means that two mothers or two fathers perform just as well as a mother and father. The studies I have presented have not been cited in any paper which presents contradictory evidence. The problem here is that you have read papers or more likely read articles referring to papers which suggest that a mother and father are important. Nothing in either of the articles or the links they contain actually demonstrate this to be the case. It's not so much that this research is void, its just that it is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
To summarise the problem we're having:
Are mothers and fathers different? YES.
Do these differences impact child outcomes? NO.
Is a mother-father family form any better than a same-sex couple? NO.
The research is clear and conclusive on this issue and is the subject of a definitive scientific consensus. Doctoremma has already clearly and concisely explained the importance and relevance of a consensus view in science, for which I am grateful.philologos wrote: »Do mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles to their children? - Yes, they do. If that is the case, how can another woman replace the role of a father, and how can a man replace the role of a mother? - They are unique benefits that come as a result of them being a mother and a father.
If there is no difference, all of the stuff I've cited is wrong. Either it is right, or it is wrong. There's not much of a middle ground.
Yes, it is a matter of right and wrong and the argument that the mother-father family form is ideal or optimal is WRONG. To reiterate the Florida Supreme Court decision:
"These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."0 -
Myself and sonic are quite happy to tell you what we think, though we've probably done so already
Are you speaking about your own personal experience of growing up with a homosexual parent(s)? Or your opinion on the gay marriage debate?I personally think the better option would be to legislate for civil weddings but allow churches to opt in rather than making them opt out. This would, I feel, general less legal challenges and aggravation, though I understand the Scottish parliament is probably trying to make a statement rather than simply make a law.
Sounds interesting.doctoremma wrote: »From the UK government consultation process, outlining the proposals for same-sex marriage legislation (my bold):
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
This consultation sets out the government's proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.
The key proposals of the consultation are:- to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
- to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
- to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
- civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
- individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage
Yes, I'm happy that if the UK does decide to go that way it will also enshrine conscientious objection. Of course, it does complicate matters when you have a official State Church. Denmark recently passed the law that the State Church, unsurprisingly called the Church of Denmark, now must preform gay marriages. Thankfully this has not been extended to other churches. However, I think that there is concern (warranted or unwarranted) that this may not always be the case.gawker wrote:Anyway, it’s encouraging to see Christians come out in support of equality.
Well, there are Christians who, broadly speaking, are in support of civil unions. For example, you can read the response Evangelical Alliance Ireland issued to the Civil Partnership Bill 2009. They might not fully endorse everything gay activists would want (indeed, the debate has moved on since the EAI published their response), but neither are they the Christian bogeymen that some people might be tempted to think when they hear the word "Christian".
I really like what OZ Guinness has to say about civility in such matters (something which has been thin on the ground at times in this thread). Indeed, he has been quite influential in penning The Global Charter of Conscience. You can listen to him in discussion with Terry Sanders of the National Secular Society (who I think just so happens to be gay) as they talk about the charter, religious freedom, gay marriage and other topics besides.
I think you might find the discussion interesting, gawker.
(That's a link to a direct mp3 download but you can also get it from iTunes. Just look out for the show entitled Secularism & Christianity.)
On another note, I've seen figures that put the percentage of homosexuality at about 3%, which is apparently more accurate then the 10% popularised by Kinsey. Out of these 3% (or whatever the figure is), how many would consider having a Christian marriage, I wonder?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 79126
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Are you speaking about your own personal experience of growing up with a homosexual parent(s)?
Yes, my mother is gay
never had any issues with it, am not traumatised, etc0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, I'm happy that if the UK does decide to go that way it will also enshrine conscientious objection. Of course, it does complicate matters when you have a official State Church. Denmark recently passed the law that the State Church, unsurprisingly called the Church of Denmark, now must preform gay marriages. Thankfully this has not been extended to other churches. However, I think that there is concern (warranted or unwarranted) that this may not always be the case.
A very interesting point. The UK does, as you know, have a state church, the Church of England. The COE is, in my experience, seen as a fairly liberal institution, where one can have tea and scones in the garden with an old duffer of a vicar. It's a church of and for the people and most would regard it as something of a quango.
In my opinion, one shared by many I have chatted with, if the COE wishes to be the "official" church of England, they have to operate under official government policy. When this government ratifies gay marriage, there will be some very serious questions about why a state-sanctioned institute is NOT adhering to the policy. What will happen? I'm not sure. My personal preference would be to remove the COE as the official church of the state and let them make their own policy decisions. But maybe they will concede in order to remain the official church?
If we compare this with, say, the Catholic Church in the UK, I don't think anyone views this as a quasi-government institution. It is most definitely a "private members club", with its own rules and own rituals, answering to no-one. I don't know anyone who thinks the Catholic Church should be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Below are links to two very recent research papers published in the June '12 edition of Social Science Research that I came across today.
The first is entitled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. What I found interesting about this paper was that actually asked the children of gay parents (19 years and up) what they thought.
The other is entitle Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Again, the feature I found most interesting about this bit of research was it's criticism of the sample sizes that formed the basis of previous research and also the self-selective nature of the samples.
I was wondering when these two studies were going to show up. You know Fanny, you do yourself a great disservice by presenting these as evidence of anything. You probably won't fint a better example of a flawed, unethical paper as these two. I will deal with each paper in turn and point out why they don't add anything to the debate.
1. The Regnerus Study
1.1. Methodological Problems
The first problem is that the Regnerus study contains several serious flaws in its experiment design.1.1.1. Population sample1.2. Ethical problems
The first problem is the sample of individuals chosen to undertake the questionnaire. The study interviewed individuals only between the ages of 18-39 and questions them on their childhood. This means that the author is only looking at a snapshot of time between 1972 and 2011. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it means that the study has no depth. There is no longitudinality which is something that usually makes for the most robust conclusions. The author even makes an acknowledgement of this fact:
"There are several things the NFSS is not. The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation."
Secondly, this snapshot covers an area of massive flux with regard to same-sex parenting. It moves from a time when homosexual parenting was entirely unusual and mostly prohibited to a time when it is becoming an accepted family form and yet seeks to make broad conclusions about the snapshot as a whole.
Also with regard to sample selection, Regnerus opens his study with an attack on previous studies such as the NLLFS (National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study) for their poor sample selection. However, Regnerus used Knowledge Networks to gather his sample data despite having prior knowledge that a) KN had a limited ability to connect him with people who fell under the criteria of the study and b) there were other companies available who could have supplied more rigorous data.
1.1.2. Classification problems
There are several problems in this section in the design of the experiment.
The first problem is the classification of family form. The survey uses the following categories for analysis:
1.IBF: Lived in intact biological family (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present (N = 919).
2.LM: R reported R’s mother had a same-sex romantic (lesbian) relationship with a woman, regardless of any other household transitions (N = 163).
3.GF: R reported R’s father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household transitions (N = 73).
4.Adopted: R was adopted by one or two strangers at birth or before age 2 (N = 101).
5.Divorced later or had joint custody: R reported living with biological mother and father from birth to age 18, but parents are not married at present (N = 116).
6.Stepfamily: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and R’s primary custodial parent was married to someone else before R turned 18 (N = 394).
7.Single parent: Biological parents were either never married or else divorced, and R’s primary custodial parent did not marry (or remarry) before R turned 18 (N = 816).
8.All others: Includes all other family structure/event combinations, such as respondents with a deceased parent (N = 406).
The problem here is that while broken homes are included in both types of same-sex families, they are definitionally excluded from heterosexual couples so that the comparisons made later on are fundamentally flawed.
The second problem with the classification above is that any instance of infidelity with a same-sex partner moves the respondent into either LM or GF regardless of the nature of the infidelity (i.e. one night stand vs. long term relationship).
The final problem with the classification above is that a number of respondents were found to fit into more than one category. To resolve this overlap Regnerus makes arbitrary decisions in order to achieve the results he wants:
"That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father)."
That, btw, is as good an example of bad science as you're ever likely to see.
In classifying the data this way, Regnerus creates a homogeneous IBF category and compares it against LM and GF categories which are made up of a number of different relationship types both stable and unstable. That dog won't hunt Monsignor.
1.1.3. Analytical problems
The first problem in this category is Regnerus' idea of what constitutes a bad outcome for children. In particular Regnerus classifies the "current" receipt of public assistance (i.e. social welfare) as a bad outcome.
The problem with this analysis is that America is currently in the depths of one of the deepest economic crises it has faced, yet Regnerus makes no attempt to analyses the other socio-economic factors that play into this in analysing the data.
The second and bigger problem is that the classification errors made by Regnerus in his experiment design leads him to making the wrong comparison. Children in a family where one or both parents were in a same-sex relationship were found to have similar outcomes to those in divorced, cohabiting and step families and markedly different from intact heterosexual families. This is because he designed the study this way. What he actually ended up doing was comparing stable families against non-stable ones and the conclusions don't offer any new insight into the field which is what research is supposed to do.
To put it simply he analysed bad data with a badly designed experiment to get bad results and ended up with bad conclusions.
Herein lies the truly repugnant aspect of this study. Regnerus made some bad choices in even opting to start this study which not only impacts on his conclusions but on science as a whole.
Firstly, Regnerus in a video interview admitted that his study does not work "to the long-term benefit of science". If ever there was a reason for not doing a study, that is it.
Secondly, Regnerus accepted a grant of $35000 from the Witherspoon Instiute to produce this study, hoping that Regnerus' reputation as a social scientist (which isn't looking great now) would give it an air of authority. Regnerus admitted that because of the grant he rushed it into publication for use in their 2012 election material.
Finally, Regnerus didn't approach the NIH for funding because in his words:
"I had a feeling when we started this project that it would not survive the politics of, in my opinion, the peer review system at the National Institute of Health"
I think that sentence speaks for itself.
As a result of this information coming to light Scott Rose, a freelance writer and novelist wrote this open letter to the University of Texas. Consequently, the university has launched an investigation of Regnerus for scientific misconduct.
2. The Marks study
I will keep this much shorter since unlike Regnerus who had been previously a reputable scientist, Marks is a discredited fraud.
Marks' study claims to analyse a number of studies of gay parenting (all of which showed positive outcomes) and show that the sample size chosen means that the conclusions are not justified.
Loren Marks has been parroting this line for a number of years. In fact this very issue (attacking the basis of the APA consensus) came up in a case challenging Prop 8. in California. Under cross-examination Marks admitted that, in fact, he hadn't read any of the studies which he claimed to analyse. As a result his testimony was ruled inadmissible.
Finally, make of it what you will but Loren Marks, James Wright (editor of Social Science Research which published both papers) and Robert George (fellow at Witherspoon Institute and sponsor of the Regnerus study) all have ties to the National Organisation for Marriage which uses false propaganda and lies to challenge gay rights and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In summary, as I have stated in previous posts, the scientific consensus is clear. Over 30 years of research in social science has shown that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents and nothing in either of these studies offers the smallest challenge to this.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Are you speaking about your own personal experience of growing up with a homosexual parent(s)? Or your opinion on the gay marriage debate?
Both Bluewolf and I were raised by gay parents (not the same ones :P), so we can answer it all honestly and directly.
In a nutshell, we're both pretty much like any person raised by a straight couple.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »OK, I'll throw my cards down on the table and say that I really don't know what to think about the whole marriage debate. I've no problems with civil unions that grant gay/ lesbian couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. However, the notion of gay/ lesbian marriage within the context of Christianity is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense. However, given the inevitable, I think I would want strong assurances that institutions and individuals conducting marriages would be allowed to abstain from preforming marriages if they conscientiously object to such unions. This seems like an adequate compromise.
As for the whole "mother + father = optimal parental unit" debate, I'm again left sitting on the fence. On one hand I can well imagine that gay parents could match or surpass many straight parents. However, laws are normative and are based upon what is best for society at large.
It seems to me that some people think the worst when they consider gay parenting. And that the children raised in such home will turn out to be morally degenerate individuals. Conversely, people on the other side seem to think that homosexual parenting is largely equivalent to heterosexual parenting. To me this seems obviously false. All of this is to say nothing about which, normatively speaking, is the optimal family unit.
Below are links to two very recent research papers published in the June '12 edition of Social Science Research that I came across today.
I wanted to take the time to respond to this, as I actually found it was well thought out, and though we may not agree on matters of belief, I think I can answer this. I won't talk about the links, as I think oldrnwisr covered it far better than I ever could.
I'll go on the record as saying that forcing a Church to marry a homosexual couple, is absolute nonsense. A church should have the right to deny performing the ceremony, just like they can in terms of refusing Atheists, different forms of Christians and other religions.
I do think that Church in question should allow if, and only if, the persons getting married would be called Christians.
I will say, that those who are objecting on Religious grounds are greatly over-reacting. No-one is looking for recognition from a church, but they are looking for full legal rights and recognition from the State, which is, I'm sorry to say, far more important to the average person, especially non-Christians.
As for children raised by homosexual couples, the argument against it is that a Father and Mother is natural, and therefore better. This is demonstratibly false, and has been proven through hundreds of studies performed by Govt's worldwide, and of course, by directly asking the children of homosexual parents.
On a personal note:
The children of homosexual couples are just like the children of heterosexual couples, if there is a difference, I'd say we're more likely to be liberal and left-wing. This in itself is not a character flaw (unless you're Mitt Romney).
I grew up in the exact same lifestyle as my friends, cousins and kids at school. I never questioned my parents being gay, all I knew was that they loved me, cared for me, and raised me to be a good man.
Are there children/adults from homosexual parents who grew up to have issues? Yes, there are for sure. But there are also millions of children (and adults) raised by heterosexual couples who have the -exact- same problems.
I don't always agree with religion, and though I may not agree with what you say and believe, I do believe you have the right to be treated as an equal, have the same rights as others and live a full and normal life.
So why should someone be treated differently based on a consensual, loving, caring, adult relationship?
Why should my parents, who raised me, looked after me, brought me to some of the most wonderful parents in the world, love their grandchildren and live a day to day life just like a straight couple, not have the exact same rights as you or anyone else?
Christians and other religious folks can dislike homosexuals all they want, and that's their business. You can think it's an abomination if you want, and though I personally think anyone who thinks that is a complete idiot, you can think it, and say it, if you want.
But don't you (or anyone) dare stand in front of me and tell me that they are not allowed to be treated as an equal, because that is just evil and wrong, no matter your religion. If you can say it about a homosexual, what's to stop people from banning religious rights, or say black people can't marry white people.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Yep, thanks for that :rolleyes: That's why I qualified my post with "in the UK".
Across all religions?
Yes, the law allows any religion to make a submission to the General Registrar Office and have their ministers, imams etc. registered as solemnisers alongside State Registrars.
I understand the Humanist Association of Ireland have been long campaigning to get this facility extended to include non-religious groups as well. Hopefully that anomaly will be sorted out soon.
I think there's a difference between the meaning of a word naturally evolving through common usage, and being deliberately altered by a pressure group who want to appropriate the positive associations that have been built up in people's minds through the word's traditional meanings.Corkfeen wrote:It's hardly the first time in the history of the English language for a word to change slightly (and it's really slight although same sex marriage have existed previously in history) in meaning. This doesn't constitute a bastardising of the English language, it's closer to an evolution of it.
It's like the rather silly trend today to allow Polytechnics and Community Colleges to call themselves 'Universities'. It doesn't actually improve anyone's education - it simply robs the word 'University' of much of its value.
In the end it's all a matter of semantics - but I am pretty resigned to the word 'marriage' being bastardised to mean whatever a pressure group wants it to mean. It's no big deal - I'll simply start using a different term to refer to what most people used to think of as 'marriage'.0 -
Christians and other religious folks can dislike homosexuals all they want, and that's their business. You can think it's an abomination if you want, and though I personally think anyone who thinks that is a complete idiot, you can think it, and say it, if you want.
But don't you (or anyone) dare stand in front of me and tell me that they are not allowed to be treated as an equal, because that is just evil and wrong, no matter your religion. If you can say it about a homosexual, what's to stop people from banning religious rights, or say black people can't marry white people.
These are my closing remarks on this thread:
Firstly, I don't "dislike" homosexuals. I don't go out of my way to dislike anyone. In fact the Gospel would encourage me to do otherwise.
All I do is disagree. I don't agree with same-sex marriage, because I genuinely believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. Despite continued attempts to ignore the fact that there's been quite a lot of research done into the significance of parental gender roles since 1980 and even before then - it is not a lie to say that there is quite a bit to suggest that children raised with both mothers and fathers benefit as a result. I'm not going to deny that. oldrnwisr is also ignoring the fact that there is quite a bit of research in respect to how fathers and mothers both affect their children in terms of outcomes.
As a Christian, I also believe that the right place for sexual expression is within a marriage, but ultimately that has as much significance for me as a single heterosexual male as it does on anybody else. I need to live as God has called me to, and I believe that God has commanded us as He did for good reason, and that He has our best intentions in heart.
I can hold these views without "disliking" anyone. I find it bizarre that some people think that if I don't applaud their views that I'm intolerant. It's bizarre because if I said that if atheists don't applaud the fact that I believe the Bible, and I go to church that they were bigots, people would regard that at best as silly.
Or even on this issue, if I said that if you don't applaud what the Gospel says concerning marriage, or if you don't applaud the reasons why I think marriage should remain between a man and a woman that you are a bigot or intolerant. You'd say that was silly at best surely?
The same applies to this issue. Just because I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, and indeed I think this is beneficial to society doesn't mean that I "dislike" homosexuals. Or indeed that I'm unwilling to accept that others disagree with me.
I can't and won't applaud what I don't agree with, and I don't see why that makes me a bigot or how it makes me intolerant.0 -
philologos wrote: »Despite continued attempts to ignore the fact that there's been quite a lot of research done into the significance of parental gender roles since 1980 and even before then - it is not a lie to say that there is quite a bit to suggest that children raised with both mothers and fathers benefit as a result. I'm not going to deny that.
OK, my patience is wearing thin. Don't think I didn't notice the veiled attack, Phil although I shouldn't have expected different.
I think it's put up or shut up time. Stop commenting that there is research and actually present it. Proper peer-reviewed evidence that actually supports the idea that gender-based characteristics influence child outcomes. All you're doing is making brazen assertions with nothing to back it up.
You are wrong about the mother-father family form and it is a lie to suggest that the research supports your view.0 -
How exactly does it place a negative association upon the meaning of marriage. It doesn't rob anything of its value and most people are in favour of it, not simply 'pressure groups', in fact there's far more pressure groups that are in direct opposition to it. It simply affords people the same rights as others and there isn't a legitimate reason for it not to be allowed.
I think there's a difference between the meaning of a word naturally evolving through common usage, and being deliberately altered by a pressure group who want to appropriate the positive associations that have been built up in people's minds through the word's traditional meanings.
It's like the rather silly trend today to allow Polytechnics and Community Colleges to call themselves 'Universities'. It doesn't actually improve anyone's education - it simply robs the word 'University' of much of its value.
In the end it's all a matter of semantics - but I am pretty resigned to the word 'marriage' being bastardised to mean whatever a pressure group wants it to mean. It's no big deal - I'll simply start using a different term to refer to what most people used to think of as 'marriage'.0 -
philologos wrote: »Firstly, I don't "dislike" homosexuals. I don't go out of my way to dislike anyone. In fact the Gospel would encourage me to do otherwise.
All I do is disagree. I don't agree with same-sex marriage, because I genuinely believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. Despite continued attempts to ignore the fact that there's been quite a lot of research done into the significance of parental gender roles since 1980 and even before then - it is not a lie to say that there is quite a bit to suggest that children raised with both mothers and fathers benefit as a result. I'm not going to deny that.
You keep saying that yet ignore all the studies highlighted by oldrnwisr to the contrary while in no way presenting any evidence to back up your "lot of research" and instead state it as if this opinion of yours is fact.philologos wrote: »I can hold these views without "disliking" anyone. I find it bizarre that some people think that if I don't applaud their views that I'm intolerant. It's bizarre because if I said that if atheists don't applaud the fact that I believe the Bible, and I go to church that they were bigots, people would regard that at best as silly.
Or even on this issue, if I said that if you don't applaud what the Gospel says concerning marriage, or if you don't applaud the reasons why I think marriage should remain between a man and a woman that you are a bigot or intolerant. You'd say that was silly at best surely?
The very big difference is your right to religious freedom is not infringed upon through the law, homosexual rights are.0 -
philologos wrote: »[...] I can't and won't applaud what I don't agree with, and I don't see why that makes me a bigot or how it makes me intolerant.
You don't have to like it, no one is saying that. You don't even have to support it!
You only have to not stop people from having the same rights you do. That is what makes such people bigots. It's really no different than anti-miscegenation yet I'm sure you'd be against that.[...] In the end it's all a matter of semantics - but I am pretty resigned to the word 'marriage' being bastardised to mean whatever a pressure group wants it to mean. It's no big deal - I'll simply start using a different term to refer to what most people used to think of as 'marriage'.
Just like people of different races marrying "bastardised" the meaning of the word?0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »Firstly, I don't "dislike" homosexuals. I don't go out of my way to dislike anyone. In fact the Gospel would encourage me to do otherwise.
All I do is disagree. I don't agree with same-sex marriage, because I genuinely believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. Despite continued attempts to ignore the fact that there's been quite a lot of research done into the significance of parental gender roles since 1980 and even before then - it is not a lie to say that there is quite a bit to suggest that children raised with both mothers and fathers benefit as a result. I'm not going to deny that.
As a Christian, I also believe that the right place for sexual expression is within a marriage, but ultimately that has as much significance for me as a single heterosexual male as it does on anybody else. I need to live as God has called me to, and I believe that God has commanded us as He did for good reason, and that He has our best intentions in heart.
I can hold these views without "disliking" anyone. I find it bizarre that some people think that if I don't applaud their views that I'm intolerant. It's bizarre because if I said that if atheists don't applaud the fact that I believe the Bible, and I go to church that they were bigots, people would regard that at best as silly.
Or even on this issue, if I said that if you don't applaud what the Gospel says concerning marriage, or if you don't applaud the reasons why I think marriage should remain between a man and a woman that you are a bigot or intolerant. You'd say that was silly at best surely?
The same applies to this issue. Just because I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, and indeed I think this is beneficial to society doesn't mean that I "dislike" homosexuals. Or indeed that I'm unwilling to accept that others disagree with me.
I can't and won't applaud what I don't agree with, and I don't see why that makes me a bigot or how it makes me intolerant.
I'm sorry Phil.
I'm wondering where -exactly- anyone, anywhere, ever asked for you to applaud this.
What we are saying is this. Homosexuals are people too. And they have every right to the exact same rights as you or I.
Do I applaud the Gospel or other Holy Texts. Nope, I never have and I probably never will.
Do I agree with racism, Nazis or even quite a lot of the overly 'feminazi' types (as they are known), not a chance.
But, I do respect your, and their, right as a human being to be who you are, freedom of speech and treated as an equal even if I don't personally agree with it.
And -that- is what it's about Phil. Equality, and the right to be treated as an human being.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement