Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_ludwigm]

Can a believing member of the Church now in good conscience vote for any of the major political parties given all their Leaders support for this bill?

They must now engage in prayer till the leaders of Great Britain see the errors of their ways and reinstitute Sharia Law. The Church will not be mocked.

That time is nigh.

If one counts the muslims in GB...

[_Bazooka]

So, here is Subgenius's claim:

The simple example is how same-sex relationships currently impact family law combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents.

Out of an "overwhelming majority of studies," he went 0-6. Given the outcome comparisons between children continuously raised by two married parents as opposed to two cohabiting parents, the data imply that permitting persons of the same sex to marry would benefit children.

So subby destroyed his own claims through his own links...ouch, that's awkward....

[_Res Ipsa]

I wouldn't say his links "destroyed" his claims. He's made lots of them in the course of this discussion. His description of the the state of the literature is simply wrong, contradicted by published literature surveys. His argument is also deceptive in one important respect: he equates "biological parents" as used in the literature with "related by blood to both parents." As his own source shows, that's not how the term is used in the literature. He then then argues that the literature shows that same sex parenting is inferior to opposite sex parenting because the studies show that biological opposite sex parenting has been shown to be "best." The problem is, the studies he refers to haven't compared same sex parenting to opposite sex parenting, at least not on an apples to apple basis. It's like surveying all cars except Toyotas and declaring that Chevy makes the "best" cars, and then specifically rejecting the value of Toyotas because "Chevys are the best." You can't compare without actually, you know, comparing.

Ironically, the well poisoning he did with all surveys that contradict his position could very easily apply to the one study that appears to support his claim: Regnerus's. It is "recent," was funded by pro-religious groups, was conducted by a graduate of Trinity University with a religious background, and was released just in advance of a national election where same sex marriage was a prominent issue. What is it with apologists that they project so much? ;-)

[_subgenius]

I wouldn't say his links "destroyed" his claims. He's made lots of them in the course of this discussion. His description of the the state of the literature is simply wrong, contradicted by published literature surveys. His argument is also deceptive in one important respect: he equates "biological parents" as used in the literature with "related by blood to both parents." As his own source shows, that's not how the term is used in the literature. He then then argues that the literature shows that same sex parenting is inferior to opposite sex parenting because the studies show that biological opposite sex parenting has been shown to be "best." The problem is, the studies he refers to haven't compared same sex parenting to opposite sex parenting, at least not on an apples to apple basis. It's like surveying all cars except Toyotas and declaring that Chevy makes the "best" cars, and then specifically rejecting the value of Toyotas because "Chevys are the best." You can't compare without actually, you know, comparing.

Ironically, the well poisoning he did with all surveys that contradict his position could very easily apply to the one study that appears to support his claim: Regnerus's. It is "recent," was funded by pro-religious groups, was conducted by a graduate of Trinity University with a religious background, and was released just in advance of a national election where same sex marriage was a prominent issue. What is it with apologists that they project so much? ;-)

the arrogance of your post is exceeded only by its ineptness.
How convenient of you to actually ignore the facts (and points i have already noted) Perhaps if you had actually read the references:

on the notion of married vs. unmarried
"Research suggests that children in cohabiting families are at higher risk of poor outcomes compared to children of married parents partly because cohabiting families have fewer socioeconomic resources and partly because of unstable living situations."
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publica ... s/0086.pdf

here is your conveniently omitted clarification of what you surely thought was a "score" above
"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."
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publica ... s/0086.pdf

which is further clarified as
"Research shows that, on average, children of divorced parents are disadvantaged compared to children of married-parent families in the area of educational achievement. Children of divorce are more than twice as likely to have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems as children of intact families—25 percent versus 10 percent."
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publica ... s/0086.pdf

and then finally (for the win)....the most revealing conclusion....that is inclusive of all sexuality and circumstances....
"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."
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publica ... s/0086.pdf

I thought you would have appreciated the warning form the Regnerus article, but since you have a catfish style of information gathering, let me toss in the current.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X12000610
61% of children of lesbian mothers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual"
90% of children of Intact Biological Family reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual"
71% of children of gay fathers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual.
This data strongly supports the conclusion that nurture has a large effect on sexual preference and discredits the claim that people are born gay.

Let us see a graphic from the Regnerus study

yep - more support for my previous statements ( i believe i mentioned lesbian parents before, and how gay men were low on the scale....jus saying)

and so on.....your cherry picking has merely left with you the pits

i also note how quickly you ignore the more direct arguments i made previously in favor of your clumsy dissection of the references provided (ie. your endorsement of child experimentation no matter the cost). Instead you rely on discounting any study that contradicts your fantasy by claiming "as a self-anointed expert i must exclaim, it is certainly flawed". Your criticisms are shallow and easily refuted, as has been shown by example here.

[Guest]

*straw grasping in the hopes of, somehow, making himself look less foolish*

So, when you said "the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents" you really meant just one, inconclusive article that is currently undergoing an audit by the journal that published it because it was found that they used "questionable evidence" and misleading data...

61% of children of lesbian mothers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual"
90% of children of Intact Biological Family reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual"
71% of children of gay fathers reported themselves to be "entirely heterosexual.
This data strongly supports the conclusion that nurture has a large effect on sexual preference and discredits the claim that people are born gay.

Good elohim, you are a doofus (who has obviously NEVER taken a basic logic or stats class). Yes, no child from a heterosexual household has ever felt the need to repress same sex attractions...I am guessing there are far fewer closeted homosexuals being raised by same-sex couples. Nice attempt at a derail though! Thank you for continuing to live down to your name.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm afk through the weekend, but I'll address Subgenius's inability to understand his own sources after I return.

[_subgenius]

Good elohim, you are a doofus (who has obviously NEVER taken a basic logic or stats class). Yes, no child from a heterosexual household has ever felt the need to repress same sex attractions...I am guessing there are far fewer closeted homosexuals being raised by same-sex couples. Nice attempt at a derail though! Thank you for continuing to live down to your name.

i am assuming that you forgot to use sartalics.
I am also assuming that you are suggesting that a same-sex household would never oppress the sexuality of a child in their care.
I am also assuming that you are suggesting that a same-sex household would never encourage one sexuality over another for a child in their care.
I am also assuming that, as usual, your argument and posts are steeped in fantasy, opinion, and unfounded conjecture.

[_schreech]

Just when I though "there is no way SUBgenius could do anything to make himself look more feebleminded and bigoted than he already has"...You go and post these 4 sentences:

i am assuming that you forgot to use sartalics.
I am also assuming that you are suggesting that a same-sex household would never oppress the sexuality of a child in their care.
I am also assuming that you are suggesting that a same-sex household would never encourage one sexuality over another for a child in their care.
I am also assuming that, as usual, your argument and posts are steeped in fantasy, opinion, and unfounded conjecture.

...and TOTALLY redeem yourself! You have restored my faith! There really are no boundaries to your ability to make yourself look like a complete tool.

As usual, all of your assumptions are completely wrong and, as usual, it looks like you just pulled them out of your arse...much like you pulled this statement out of your backside:

"the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents"

Its humorous to me that you completely skipped the first part of my post:

"So, when you said "the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents" you really meant just one, inconclusive article that is currently undergoing an audit by the journal that published it because it was found that they used "questionable evidence" and misleading data..."

...In favor of my sarcastic response to your attempted derail. Its even funnier to me that your derail (where you attempt to not look like a COMPLETE doofus while having your arse handed to you) makes you look like a bigger ignoramus than I ever imagined. You are a fine example of the ignorant bigotry that seems to be a signature of self appointed, online defenders of the LDS church.

Here is the thing, I get that you don't like homosexuals and that your psuedo-religious social club has told you to do everything you can to force your bronze age based morality on them while denying them equal rights...I understand. Now how about you show us a few of the STUDIES you mention here:

"the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents"

[_palerobber]

As I understand it, the problem with the studies that exist today is finding a true apples to apples comparison.

apples to apples?
the point stated was that the best environment for a child is with both of its biological parents. [...]

except that wasn't your original point stated.

you weren't content to merely claim that "the best environment for a child is with both of its biological parents". that would have been at least technically true, though misleading in the context of this thread. because, as Brad has pointed out, it's only the "best" among those household arrangements which have been studied thus far. and there hasn't yet been a single study looking at the outcomes of children raised throughout childhood by a same sex couple (the Regnerus study had a sample size of two in this category, and didn't even release isolated data for those two -- no doubt because they had relatively positive outcomes).

what you actually claimed is that "the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents." as i predicted, and as subsequent discussion on this thread has shown, you can't name even a single study whose data supports that claim, let alone show an "overwhelming majority".

by the way subgenius, should we take your post quoted above to mean that you are now retreating to the technically-true-but-misleading position?

[_palerobber]

As usual, all of your assumptions are completely wrong and, as usual, it looks like you just pulled them out of your arse...much like you pulled this statement out of your backside:

"the overwhelming majority of studies that conclude with same sex couples being less effective and less beneficial for a child when compared to the child's biological parents"

i have to disagree with you a little here schreech. i don't think subgenius pulled that (false) statement out of his backside, i think it came straight from his heart.

i think that the anti-marriage crowd holds as the earnest and fervent desire of their hearts that gay couples will prove to be bad parents. just look at how much money they gave Regnerus, and not even to deliver the goods but just to give them something they could point to and fool some people with. if gays are not bad parents, then they really have nothing left with which to rationalize their emotion/religion based bigotry, and they know it.