Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

I've seen a few studies and one thing is certain:

The conclusions and methods reached in them, clearly trump the commentary contained in any internet debate forum.

From what I've seen myself and read, the kids of gay parents are doing very well.

 

Scientists and big shots never debate on the Internet? But, he said he help draft the Rome treaty, he said it…

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/27/local/me-56379

 

Over the years and today, I've heard little about gay parenting being a problem.

 

How many times have we heard about something being recalled or banned because after x many years it was discovered that the product was faulty and harmful?

I say the results so far do not permit us to know for certain what the effects of Gay parenting may be on our civilization, our society as a whole. All we can say is that so far it doesn't appear to have detrimental effects on the children.

And while that is certainly a crucially important STARTING POINT when discussing the issue of Gay parenting, by no means should it be the end of the discussion.

Several more generations of family studies may be needed to see the big picture in enough detail to make a final determination.

But, we know libs are too emotional and impulsive to wait that long. And then, if the results prove to be negative, just like the liberal reforms that went wrong starting in the 1960's, the libs won't know what to do to fix their mess.

 

I think there have been enough studies. I would agree that certain things need to be watched, but surely there are enough kids of gay parents out here to have a decent idea of how they are really doing. After all, this isn't anything like a product we've just invented in a lab. Kids of gay parents have actually been around for a very long time; it's not new.

 

Your description of the term, "civil unions," as "[e]ccentric lexicography" (as opposed to "common parlance"), is really quite illuminating.

The term, "civil unions," has been common parlance in the US. Until very recently, anyway, when proponents of the activist gay-rights agenda began insisting upon its being re-designated as "marriage"...

 

Hint: Same-sex couples didn't suddenly start raising children concurrent with the beginnings of government recognizing their relationships. They've been doing it in the shadows for decades.

 

I kinda went there, but you said it much more directly.

 

I think people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend.

 

Not letting that one go by unchallenged: There are more states recognizing same-sex couples as married than there ever were states providing them with something called "civil unions". So much for the latter being "common parlance". I suspect it's common only among those who oppose equality but don't wish to feel bad about doing so.

 

“Siegel acknowledges the limits of all this research: none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents.” http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

“The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children ‘indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,’ Siegel and Perrin write.”

That is not science, he says so himself.

 

Like Johnny-C said: "Over the years and today, I've heard little about gay parenting being a problem." Have you heard otherwise?

 

Likely the greatest problems (for any child) will come from the reality that they will be teased/rejected as individuals, due the reality their families aren't as widely accepted by others. And that is changing rather rapidly as younger kids accept homosexuality and the changing structure of families more readily than previous generations have.

Even so, I'm confident that future studies will not only find the kids of gay couples are doing well... but also indicate what I'm suggesting above.

I don't think the fears of DivineComedy are so well-founded, though I am interested in more study on anything that may ultimately be of help to 'children' (our future).

 

Heard? Yes, I am NOT deaf or blind. {Oh, and the little Thank Yous that people give for nothing intelligent serve no purpose.}

Like I told a guy (JMayo) in 2004, after Gay States have been doing it for a while then they can prove there is no problem. That is why I am against courts using judicial activism on this; the States are doing just fine, and that is the way it is supposed to work. Eventually there will be more than enough data from Gay friendly States to compare with others to show a better conclusion and I am certain we can expect intimidation and lies from both sides.

As it is now when a study says a kid raised by Homos is more likely to experiment sexually logically the study may be skewed by a variety of factors, such as continuing peer pressure in a hostile community to remain closeted. It would be best to have data from both Gay States and Hetero States so as to determine if it is nature or nurture that makes more limp wrists among Gays. Without proper study for all we know it might be exposure to Gay aftershave...

 

We must agree to disagree on this.

I understand your concerns (or have tried to).

Peace.

P.S. If you think that using terms like "Homos" will afford you credibility or cause others to regard your commentary as being more serious or concrete... you might want to think it over more completely.

 

Well, keep talking to yourself then, if your views aren't going to be more 'flexible' than what you've indicated.

I'm surely able to discuss this same thing with thousands of others, these days. I've been on this topic periodically for many years; your views and contentions are nothing particularly astounding, significant or new.

I see your point and I've had enough of it (for now).

Take care.

 

I have no intention to do that. A Gay might not be a Homo because being Gay might be by choice whereas a Homo might be by birth. I can be very flexible, in more ways than one; feel free to show us the science, that does not fall apart like your last feeble attempt.

 

What?? Do you believe a kid raised by a gay couple will turn out gay? "Gay"/"Hetero" States???? "Limp wrists"???

Are you kidding us?

 

Yep. He's WAY out there, somewhere.

 

“Well, keep talking to yourself then, if your views aren't going to be more 'flexible' than what you've indicated.” (Johnny-C)

“No daddy daddy, don’t put me in the box again, I will be more flexible.”

Is homosexuality a lifestyle choice (nurture) or genetic (nature)? Or could it be combinations? We know hermaphrodites exist, and Jesus knew about eunuchs born of their mother’s womb.

One might even come up with a hypothesis that overpopulation causes sexual changes in frogs…oh, wait, that is another topic.

Any study would have to consider whether the biological kid of a homosexual could become one due to genetics and not nurturing. Like say one might want more than one control group, kids raised in group homes or orphanages, and groups maybe with one of adopted kids from a homosexual parent but raised by heterosexuals, maybe another of kids from heterosexual parents raised by homosexuals. And they would want to look for differences between male (Gay) and female (Lesbean) couples too.

So why would it be such a kneejerk to think the biological offspring of a Gay man, raised by Gay men might come out Gay, and there be nothing nefarious going on?

A Gay State might be amenable to Gay couples, and have a majority of Heterosexuals, whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist) might have a different thing going on with the sex changes and one day marriage (prostitution). {See News every once and a while.} When looking for the environment to study one is going to have to attach little labels.

 

Now that is disturbing.

Any study would have to consider whether the biological kid of a homosexual could become one due to genetics and not nurturing.

First, I thought we were talking about gay parenting. We have proof that the biological kid of a gay person can be straight or gay. We have many examples from the marriages to the opposite sex for those who concealed their real sexuality. For some reason, you think all these things happened only in the last 10 years. You flat out thought that children of gays would have to be gay. WRONG.

So why would it be such a kneejerk to think the biological offspring of a Gay man, raised by Gay men might come out Gay, and there be nothing nefarious going on?

See above.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY STATE OR A STRAIGHT STATE!!!

whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist)

Now I know that you are kidding.

 

Precisely. He is promoting a waste of people's time/attention... whether he intends to or not.

 

While this might be a perfectly valid question for someone sincerely interested in the answer, it strikes me more opportunistic than sincere when most people pose the question. There are a multitude of factors, from socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, race, hobbies, cultural background and other personal attributes which contribute to the development and wellbeing of children. At the furthest extreme allow convicted felons to marry, violent rapists and child abusers, people who have had their children taken from them by the state due to neglect or abuse can marry and remain married. What strikes me as insincere is not that someone might be interested in knowing the effect of a same-sex vs opposite-sex parent household... rather, it's that they apparently think it would be worse than a convicted child molester marrying a serial killer if they think the state should step in and block their ability to marry until there is more study.

Even excluding the extreme examples of felons and murderers marrying, there are a multitude of factors that are dramatically more meaningful in impacting the development and wellbeing of children, and I don't consider that point highly debatable regardless of what reasonable perspective is taken when viewing the results of currently available studies on children raised by same-sex couples.

I suppose you could say, "well, just because there are some restrictions on marriage that should exist but don't, doesn't mean we should allow anything". And you may be right. But in my mind, I highly doubt hardly any of the people who take that stance are really interested in overturning the cultural standards and Supreme Court cases by making those restrictions real and prohibiting opposite-sex couples from marrying for the same reason same-sex couples can't... i.e. a known or speculated harm caused to children raised in their care, even when such harm is not obvious.

 

“Any study would have to consider whether the biological kid of a homosexual could become one due to genetics and not nurturing.” (me)

“You flat out thought that children of gays would have to be gay. WRONG.” (bomac)

The operative word was “could,” so what you derived from the sentence should be impossible.

“First, I thought we were talking about gay parenting.” (bomac)

In Psychology 101 we learn about nurturing (parenting and environment…) and nature, and in Biology 101 we learn about nature; that is why they are core classes.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

You say, “We have proof that the biological kid of a gay person can be straight or gay.”

That is a meaningless statement, it does not say why. “Why,” is important to the discussion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...s-inherited-through-mens-mothers-1485079.html

http://www.geneticfutures.com/astronauts/info/sheet1.asp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

http://www.helium.com/items/1308739...enetics-genes-dna-behavior-environment-choice

http://books.google.com/books?id=sI...X&ei=fpykUfqwEoKI9gTQxoCYBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBzgU

The reason why “any study would have to consider whether the biological kid of a homosexual could become one due to genetics and not nurturing,” is simply to prove that this is not the only reason if the child becomes gay:

“Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)

To ignore biology would be a mistake, and to ignore the opposing argument would be stupid.

You cannot have a proper scientific study rooted in bias or making assumptions.

“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY STATE OR A STRAIGHT STATE!!!

whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist)

Now I know that you are kidding.” (bomac)

“A Gay State might be amenable to Gay couples, and have a majority of Heterosexuals, whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist) might have a different thing going on with the sex changes and one day marriage (prostitution). {See News every once and a while.} When looking for the environment to study one is going to have to attach little labels.” (me)

If the researcher does not attach some labels to the folders (Gay friendly environment folder vs. Hetero only friendly environment folder), the guy looks like an absent minded professor whose data is all jumbled up.

“'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-Ivy-League-audience.html#ixzz2UaNGmp6w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Inviduous discrimination under the law is where equal protection under the law is denied without a ligitimate purpose by the State.

Same-gender marriage does not infringe upon anyone's Rights nor does same-gender marriage negatively effect opposite-gender marriage and no ligitmate "State's Interest" has ever been provided to support the denial of same-gender marriage under our laws. Lacking a ligitimate "State's Interest" the denial of the legal institution of marriage to same-gender couples represents "invidious discrimination" by the government under the law.