Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 53 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2014, 06:19 PM   #781
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
To be fair and balanced, as some say, here is the CBS news coverage of the study and the fire it has drawn from some of today's experts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-...-from-experts/





And yes, there are dozens of new studies, by experts, that claim there are not any differences or harm to children raised by SS couples. A few sites even claim the children fare better in a SS family.



I'm positive the KKK could not do a nonbiased study, but I guess we can trust studies conducted by Left institutions and GL studies.



This is not the first time in history studies and surveys have contradicted each other.


What are the Left institutions and the GL studies? The studies usually cited are done by the APA and other nonpartisan medical groups and associations.

I really appreciated you posting this, because it shows how the media is pulled to the right. The report isn't about the accuracy of the Regnerous study, but about the "controversy" -- which suggests that it's presenting a study of equal quality and value as many others that have been done in the past. It isn't.

But this was the point of this rigged study, similar to how studies that "present a different viewpoint" on global warming function to give people who don't wish to believe the actual facts a liferaft, a piece of flotsam by which to argue or at least pretend that there's a different "side," when in reality, there isn't. We saw a lot of this in the early '00's regarding something as non-controversial as evolution.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 06:25 PM   #782
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
The Mark Regnerus study has many problems, the least of which is whom he defines as being homosexual. Basically any parent who had at any time a relationship or one night stand fell within the gay father or lesbian mother categories, the parents were specifically never asked to qualify their sexual orientation. The majority of the children did not live with the gay couple for the majority of their childhood. Only 2 I believe spent their whole childhood with their gay parents. I'd say the study looked more at family breakup than anything to do with gay parenting. Plus while he accounted for state gay friendliness, we are talking about interviewing grown children from 18 to I think 39. Nowhere was particularly gay friendly nearly 40 years ago.

Lastly one study does not proof make, what you need is many likely on an international scale to control for local attitudes and the like.



This is an excellent post and pinpoints exactly how the study was rigged so that it could be presented just in time for the SCOTUS hearings on DOMA.

Again, SS parenting and SSM aren't the same issue.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-11-2014, 06:27 PM   #783
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post

Here is the study he is commenting on:
The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse

It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:
Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.
What that study fails to recognize is that homophobia can lead to depression and thoughts of suicide. I could imagine many kids with same-sex parents felt depressed being rejected by society and bullied in school because their family was different.

Luckily, with same-sex parenting becoming more accepted, those problems may reduce for kids of same-sex parents. I could imagine biracial children in the 60s, 70s and 80s felt depressed and suicidal growing up because of society's attitude toward biracials and interracial marriages. But these days, its not a big deal, so those kids have little reason to be unhappy because of that.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 03:12 AM   #784
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Guys can we please not drift off to Same Sex Parenting again? We have a separate thread for that. This thread is simply on the marriage, and I still do not see why these two terms should be inseparable.

Marriage =/= wanting or having kids. Simple as that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 01:49 PM   #785
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:11 PM
For those of you asking how SSM marriage will harm children or society I'll give you a quick answer. Ideas have consequences and well before the SSM debate the understanding of marriage was drifting from that of a conjugal union to an emotional union.

1. Divorce rates skyrocket because why should a marriage based only in love be restricted by the time limit of "til' death do us part" when love may not last that long?
2. The idea that the nuclear family, single parents, cohabiting couples and now same-sex couples are just different arrangements of equal value in the new norm of "household and family diversity" has had consequences already.
3. By what argument can marriage based on love and companionship be limited to two people? That has future consequences.
4. The idea that gender is superficial and subjective will have consequences.
5. The idea that limiting marriage to a man and a woman being akin to Jim Crow laws has consequences as opposition to SSM - by word or action - will be dealt with by lawsuits, intimidation and 1st Amendment restrictions.

Just the fact that many of you are insisting that parenting and marriage are easily dissociable demonstrates how far this new understanding (misunderstanding) of marriage has seeped into our culture.

Sorry, that's all I have time for today.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 02:01 PM   #786
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
The Mark Regnerus study has many problems....
The main thing I took away from that study was that daring to challenge the orthodoxy of the Left will get you only personal threats of violence and run out of town by a pitchfork yielding mob of college professors, administrators, LBGT advocates, diversicrats and media PC enforcers.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 02:26 PM   #787
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Just the fact that many of you are insisting that parenting and marriage are easily dissociable demonstrates how far this new understanding (misunderstanding) of marriage has seeped into our culture.
Just the fact that many of you are insisting that land ownership and marriage are easily dissociable demonstrates how far this new understanding (misunderstanding) of marriage has seeped into our culture.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-12-2014, 02:42 PM   #788
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Sorry but I have no idea what you just said Indy... are these supposed to be arguments? I'm genuinely confused here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 02:43 PM   #789
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,039
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
For those of you asking how SSM marriage will harm children or society I'll give you a quick answer. Ideas have consequences and well before the SSM debate the understanding of marriage was drifting from that of a conjugal union to an emotional union.

1. Divorce rates skyrocket because why should a marriage based only in love be restricted by the time limit of "til' death do us part" when love may not last that long?
2. The idea that the nuclear family, single parents, cohabiting couples and now same-sex couples are just different arrangements of equal value in the new norm of "household and family diversity" has had consequences already.
3. By what argument can marriage based on love and companionship be limited to two people? That has future consequences.
4. The idea that gender is superficial and subjective will have consequences.
5. The idea that limiting marriage to a man and a woman being akin to Jim Crow laws has consequences as opposition to SSM - by word or action - will be dealt with by lawsuits, intimidation and 1st Amendment restrictions.

Just the fact that many of you are insisting that parenting and marriage are easily dissociable demonstrates how far this new understanding (misunderstanding) of marriage has seeped into our culture.

Sorry, that's all I have time for today.

Three times in this post you use the word consequences without specifying what any of them are. Again, if you can specify what the consequences are - and no, some random person being frowned upon for not selling a cake to a gay couple is not a good enough reason to oppose same sex marriage - then I am more than willing to change my mind on te issue.
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 03:07 PM   #790
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
For those of you asking how SSM marriage will harm children or society I'll give you a quick answer. Ideas have consequences and well before the SSM debate the understanding of marriage was drifting from that of a conjugal union to an emotional union.

1. Divorce rates skyrocket because why should a marriage based only in love be restricted by the time limit of "til' death do us part" when love may not last that long?
2. The idea that the nuclear family, single parents, cohabiting couples and now same-sex couples are just different arrangements of equal value in the new norm of "household and family diversity" has had consequences already.
3. By what argument can marriage based on love and companionship be limited to two people? That has future consequences.
4. The idea that gender is superficial and subjective will have consequences.
5. The idea that limiting marriage to a man and a woman being akin to Jim Crow laws has consequences as opposition to SSM - by word or action - will be dealt with by lawsuits, intimidation and 1st Amendment restrictions.

Just the fact that many of you are insisting that parenting and marriage are easily dissociable demonstrates how far this new understanding (misunderstanding) of marriage has seeped into our culture.

Sorry, that's all I have time for today.



Sounds like you really have issues with women since about 1963 or so, not gay people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 04:26 PM   #791
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 01:11 PM
I get it this is an SSM thread, but if you're gonna talk kids, for a fair statistical analysis you're going to have to compare four or five groups, not just two. One of those groups, which is critical and I haven't heard much about, is adopting straight couples.

Oh and btw, for anyone who has proposed the argument that gay couples are supposedly more likely to have an open relationship or welcome a third into their bed or whatever... have you ever considered that you as a straight wed couple have the freedom to do that too? You're proposing such a slave era argument here. Even if it was more common... you're making an argument founded on pure equality. Regardless of subject matter. Straight open relationships exist. This sounds a lot like a 1950s segregation argument... we acknowledge they are no different than us yet we would like to limit their freedoms because we don't want no dirty queer using out straight bathrooms. Our straight bathrooms hold a higher moral standard you see... even though we do the exact same thing in them. Poop and pee yo.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 04:29 PM   #792
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:11 PM
It also seems odd to criticize people for having non-traditional relationship structures when they've been banned from traditional relationship structures until very recently.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 04:55 PM   #793
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,375
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Honestly I would imagine the occurrence of open relationships is a little higher in gay couples. But I don't think that's an inherently gay thing to do. It happens because you've oppressed that group of people. There is no real group of conservative gays out there that bond together and defend classical relationships. Why? That stuff is already accepted and understood.

Look at segregation. Blacks were more likely to "break the moral code" by disobeying segregation and sitting in at the white lunch counter. Or sit at the front of the bus. Was their disobedience a product of their color of skin? No, it was them being free and standing up against exactly what was oppressing them.

Look at slavery. Same thing. Were the slaves inherently trying to disobey their order by trying to learn to read? By trying to escape to the north? Or was that a product of their oppression? I think we can all answer that for ourselves.

Counter culture in the 60s? A bunch of pot smoking hippies up against "the man"... do you think those people were all inherently just disobedient? Or did they do exactly what they weren't supposed to be doing, plus more, because they didn't like the way they were being told what to do. Fight in wars, don't use your freedom of speech, blah blah blah.

Perhaps I don't have the best of deliveries. But the point is that when you tell someone what they can and can't do, and in turn force them to be oppressed in their eyes, they're going to go above and beyond with defiance to express their freedom. Gay rights activists don't naturally just want to make out in front of a large crowd of people. Pot smokers aren't just dying to blow smoke in your face. Blacks weren't just eager to sit on your lunch counter because you didn't like it. Slaves weren't trying to be free just because slave owners were reaping benefits. All of these people have personal interests in mind. By agitating their desires you only make it worse.

Ill conclude with one last statement. Is pot a gateway drug? No not theoretically. But is it? Sure it is. By not legalizing something that's entirely harmless you create doors for harmless activity and those engaging in the harmless activity are going to be more susceptible to supporting even more then they're bargaining for. Y'know, prohibition caused crime. You're arming activists with weapons you never wanted on the table. Gays are only incredibly liberal and progressive because they are forced and encouraged to be so.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 05:19 PM   #794
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

I think gay men are, on average, more likely to have open relationships, but that's because they are men, and that's not all men, and the seriousness of marriage is a new thing for older gays who grew up in a different time and likely had different expectations for themselves and of a partner, and in a free society, we let people arrange their lives how they best see fit.

I mean, we should be able to dictate not just who has sex with who, but also how they have sex, BUT GOD FORBID YOU MAKE ME BUY HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY!!!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-12-2014, 08:26 PM   #795
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The main thing I took away from that study was that daring to challenge the orthodoxy of the Left will get you only personal threats of violence and run out of town by a pitchfork yielding mob of college professors, administrators, LBGT advocates, diversicrats and media PC enforcers.
So I take it my critique of his work is null and void?

The only thing out of all of this that has demonstrated consequences of actual harm is the crappy homophobia those on the right continue to espouse. Where are the increased teen suicides amongst heterosexuals due to 2 men getting married? Where is anyone being beat to death because they are heterosexual? The violence and consequences are there for all to see and they do not touch you in anyway whatsoever. If there is anyone runnin wielding a pitchfork it is those on the right.
__________________

__________________
LJT is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com