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

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…1819212324…218

Comments

  • #602
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    philologos wrote: »
    Same sex relationships can't benefit a child in the same way. Children can be raised in that context and be fine, but marriage is better precisely because of the difference both mum and dad make on average on a child's life.

    Do you have any evidence to support this?
    philologos wrote: »
    I'm saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different and should be recognised differently.

    Can you give examples, with evidence of any practical differences between the two? Aside from the obvious, being able to fertilise an egg between the pair (Something that many straight couples cannot do either).


  • #603
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not pretending. I think the Irish Government should consider them for adoption as they do here in the UK. First preference should be given to married couples - a man and a woman in a stable relationship. Marriage is better even than cohabitation or single parenting statistically. So it's not solely about LGBT relationships.

    Simply put the union between a man and a woman is different to a same sex relationship.

    Same sex relationships can't benefit a child in the same way. Children can be raised in that context and be fine, but marriage is better precisely because of the difference both mum and dad make on average on a child's life.

    I'm saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different and should be recognised differently.

    So you think preference should be given to married couples but same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry?

    Of course heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different - it does not logically follow that one is inferior to the other and deserving of lesser legal protections.

    Also all relationships are different - my sister's first marriage and second marriage are completely different but both were still marriages. My brother's relationship with his wife is different to my sister's relationship with her husband. Their approach to parenting is light years apart. Yet, you would accept both marriages as equally valid.

    My relationship with my OH is different to other lesbian couples it doesn't mean mine is either superior or inferior. It simply has different dynamics.

    Heterosexual parenting cannot benefit a child in the same way as homosexual parenting can. As I said - Different but Equal.


  • #604
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Says it all really

    65c5fails-let-the-great-gay-marriage-debate-begin.jpg


  • #605
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So you think preference should be given to married couples but same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry?
    Phil lives in the UK. Not only do we have practically equal rights in civil unions and civil marriages (I believe there's a slightly different set of conditions for divorce), same sex couples have the full legal right to adopt. And as same sex marriage will be formalised in the near future, them we will have lots of gay married couples who can adopt as easily as the next man (or woman, ha).

    I wonder where the next objection is coming from.....


  • #606
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    IBTL
    philologos wrote: »
    Here's a post that I provided earlier which links to a study that provides criticism of the 2005 APA study on same-sex parenting:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80006663

    The reality is, that the claim that a woman can replace a father, and vice versa is contested to say the least. The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin also provides a different perspective on this issue. Simply put, there is disagreement on this issue.

    My point is really simple. In addition there are a large number of studies over the last 30 years that look into the unique and beneficial roles that a father and a mother have in respect to their children. It is contradictory to claim that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father if the former is true. See my previous post here.

    I have refrained from entering this thread until now because I don't like repeating myself too often or wasting my breath pointing out evidence to those who won't listen. However, this is an important issue and the facts of the matter should be made clear.

    Firstly, I have dealth with both the Loren Marks paper and the Regnerus study here. I dealt with the Regnerus study in detail in that post and it is as good an example of bad science as you're ever going to find. However, there are some points that I want to expand in relation to the Marks paper.

    There are several major flaws with the Marks paper even before we get to the ethical issues surrounding the author. It should be pointed out before I begin, though, that the 2005 APA study is not actually a study but rather an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief prepared by the APA detailing the evidence supporting same-sex parenting.

    1. In 2010, Loren Marks was called as an expert witness for the defence in a case challenging the legality of California's Proposition 8. Marks testified that children did best with their biological or genetic parents. Under cross-exmaniation Marks admitted that he had cherry picked data from the studies and he had not in fact read most of the studies which he cited in his report (which he later replicated as the study you linked to).

    Two other defense experts (social science researchers from McGill University) also admitted during depositions that:

    "equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage."

    The deposition transcripts and case report can be found here. Marks' involvement is described thusly:

    "    Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents. Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed."


    2. Mark's main point of criticism is the small sample sizes used in the studies cited by the APA. While Marks portrays this as a problem for the conclusions drawn by the studies, this is not the opinion of other researchers in the field. Meezan and Rauch's literature review of same-sex parenting in 2005 points out that same-sex couples represent a small and geographically diverse population and that gathering a large sample size is a methodological problem rather than an analytical one. Rosenfeld also notes this in his census study in 2010, pointing out that all same-sex couples taken together represent just 1.8% of family forms in the United States.


    3. Despite publishing his paper seven years after the brief (and nine years after the latest study included in the report) which he criticizes, Marks makes no attempt to incorporate studies outside those cited in the APA brief to show whether or not they support his claims. There have been large sample-size nationally representative studies conducted subsequent to the APA's brief. Two noteworthy examples of these include the 2010 Rosenfeld study mentioned earlier and the US Dept. of Health & Human Services study in 2010.


    4. Marks also, as noted above, fails to account for any research conducted in to lesbian and gay parenting which fatally unhinges any valid analysis.


    5. Marks makes no acknowledgement of the many other medical and social work bodies which have issued position statements in favour of equal marriage which makes the entire paper rather redundant.


    6. Despite reviewing 59 papers cited by the APA in his paper, Marks fails to point out that there are in fact 65 empirical studies specifically related to gay and lesbian parents and their children cited in the report. He makes no acknowledgement of why excludes the remaining six. Furthermore, the report also cites empirical studies related to the general fitness of lesbian women and gay men as parents as well as many literature reivews, meta-analyses, legal reviews and individual case studies in support of its conclusions. All told there are over 130 publications cited in the report over half of which are ignored by Marks.


    When we move past the scientifc flaws in the paper, we see that there are also deeper ethical concerns with Marks and his work. First of all, as noted above Marks admitted under oath that he didn't know any same-sex couples. This is not an area of research in which Marks is actively engaged. In fact since 2002, Marks' research efforts have been on a national qualitative study exploring the links between family and religious faith.
    Before publishing his study, Marks made a preprint available to the Republican Party committee defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact both Marks and Regnerus rushed their research through publication so that it would be available for the 2012 elections. Additionally, Marks, Regnerus and James Wright (editor of the journal where both studies were published) have ties to both the NOM and the Witherspoon Institute and all three are contributors to National Review a conservative political soapbox. This would explain why Regnerus is now facing a university investigation for scientific misconduct. If LSU value their academic integrity, Marks' investigation won't be far behind.



    The Marks/Regnerus double whammy was a politically motivated smokescreen by one discredited fraudster and one soon-to-be discredited fraudster using bad science to make conclusions not supported by the wide body of research in the field or the consensus of the researchers involved. Since both of these studies were only published in July I wouldn't expect any papers tearing them apart for at least another few months but they're going to come thick and fast after that. This will make cold fusion look like a storm in a teacup.

    Reference papers



    2010 HHS Study

    Blackwell DL. Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(246). 2010.




    2010 Rosenfeld Study


    Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School; Michael J. Rosenfeld; Demography, Volume 47, Number 3, August 2010, pp. 755-775




    2005 Meezan and Rauch review


    Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children



    2005 APA Brief


    Lesbian & Gay Parenting




    That's all the time I have now but I later tonight or possibly tomorrow I will deconstruct your other post to show you that the studies you cite don't support what you're actually claiming.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    IBTL



    I have refrained from entering this thread until now because I don't like repeating myself too often or wasting my breath pointing out evidence to those who won't listen. However, this is an important issue and the facts of the matter should be made clear.

    Firstly, I have dealth with both the Loren Marks paper and the Regnerus study here. I dealt with the Regnerus study in detail in that post and it is as good an example of bad science as you're ever going to find. However, there are some points that I want to expand in relation to the Marks paper.

    There are several major flaws with the Marks paper even before we get to the ethical issues surrounding the author. It should be pointed out before I begin, though, that the 2005 APA study is not actually a study but rather an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief prepared by the APA detailing the evidence supporting same-sex parenting.

    1. In 2010, Loren Marks was called as an expert witness for the defence in a case challenging the legality of California's Proposition 8. Marks testified that children did best with their biological or genetic parents. Under cross-exmaniation Marks admitted that he had cherry picked data from the studies and he had not in fact read most of the studies which he cited in his report (which he later replicated as the study you linked to).

    Two other defense experts (social science researchers from McGill University) also admitted during depositions that:

    "equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage."

    The deposition transcripts and case report can be found here. Marks' involvement is described thusly:

    "    Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents. Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed."


    2. Mark's main point of criticism is the small sample sizes used in the studies cited by the APA. While Marks portrays this as a problem for the conclusions drawn by the studies, this is not the opinion of other researchers in the field. Meezan and Rauch's literature review of same-sex parenting in 2005 points out that same-sex couples represent a small and geographically diverse population and that gathering a large sample size is a methodological problem rather than an analytical one. Rosenfeld also notes this in his census study in 2010, pointing out that all same-sex couples taken together represent just 1.8% of family forms in the United States.


    3. Despite publishing his paper seven years after the brief (and nine years after the latest study included in the report) which he criticizes, Marks makes no attempt to incorporate studies outside those cited in the APA brief to show whether or not they support his claims. There have been large sample-size nationally representative studies conducted subsequent to the APA's brief. Two noteworthy examples of these include the 2010 Rosenfeld study mentioned earlier and the US Dept. of Health & Human Services study in 2010.


    4. Marks also, as noted above, fails to account for any research conducted in to lesbian and gay parenting which fatally unhinges any valid analysis.


    5. Marks makes no acknowledgement of the many other medical and social work bodies which have issued position statements in favour of equal marriage which makes the entire paper rather redundant.


    6. Despite reviewing 59 papers cited by the APA in his paper, Marks fails to point out that there are in fact 65 empirical studies specifically related to gay and lesbian parents and their children cited in the report. He makes no acknowledgement of why excludes the remaining six. Furthermore, the report also cites empirical studies related to the general fitness of lesbian women and gay men as parents as well as many literature reivews, meta-analyses, legal reviews and individual case studies in support of its conclusions. All told there are over 130 publications cited in the report over half of which are ignored by Marks.


    When we move past the scientifc flaws in the paper, we see that there are also deeper ethical concerns with Marks and his work. First of all, as noted above Marks admitted under oath that he didn't know any same-sex couples. This is not an area of research in which Marks is actively engaged. In fact since 2002, Marks' research efforts have been on a national qualitative study exploring the links between family and religious faith.
    Before publishing his study, Marks made a preprint available to the Republican Party committee defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact both Marks and Regnerus rushed their research through publication so that it would be available for the 2012 elections. Additionally, Marks, Regnerus and James Wright (editor of the journal where both studies were published) have ties to both the NOM and the Witherspoon Institute and all three are contributors to National Review a conservative political soapbox. This would explain why Regnerus is now facing a university investigation for scientific misconduct. If LSU value their academic integrity, Marks' investigation won't be far behind.



    The Marks/Regnerus double whammy was a politically motivated smokescreen by one discredited fraudster and one soon-to-be discredited fraudster using bad science to make conclusions not supported by the wide body of research in the field or the consensus of the researchers involved. Since both of these studies were only published in July I wouldn't expect any papers tearing them apart for at least another few months but they're going to come thick and fast after that. This will make cold fusion look like a storm in a teacup.

    Reference papers



    2010 HHS Study

    Blackwell DL. Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(246). 2010.




    2010 Rosenfeld Study


    Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School; Michael J. Rosenfeld; Demography, Volume 47, Number 3, August 2010, pp. 755-775




    2005 Meezan and Rauch review


    Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children



    2005 APA Brief


    Lesbian & Gay Parenting




    That's all the time I have now but I later tonight or possibly tomorrow I will deconstruct your other post to show you that the studies you cite don't support what you're actually claiming.

    I think this is what is called *burn*.


  • #608
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I have refrained from entering this thread until now because I don't like repeating myself too often or wasting my breath pointing out evidence to those who won't listen.
    I wouldn't want to see what sort of post you'd have laid on him if you though he was worth the effort... :eek:


  • #609
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    But they're not.

    This has been shown to you countless times, both with the studies you asked us to link, as well as the direct testimony from the children of homosexual couples, and homosexuals themselves.

    You're basically going for the 'head in the sand' technique, fingers plugged firmly inside your ears going 'lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala' and just obviously ignoring the direct facts and opinions which are attempting to correct you. It's become apparent you'll stick to this opinion, and when the last poster here as given simply stopped bothering to respond to you because they know it's a waste of time, you'll simply claim some form of victory.

    Except I've shown you one study criticising the methods used in these studies. I.E not enough of a sample size.

    I've also linked to another study with a larger sample size and differing conclusions.

    The fact of the matter is its justifiable to leave marriage alone. It's also justifiable to regard civil partnerships as different.

    I'm happy to discuss with you but the truth is that this is a contested issue in academia. In most mature and civilised conversation it's possible to agree to disagree.

    For the record I'm critical in general of how liberal attitudes to sexuality are eroding the number of children with their biological parents in a stable marriage in the West. I believe that's destructive in general.

    oldrnwisr: by evidence you mean whilst fobbing off / ignoring that the matter isn't as simple in academia and accusing people of lying when bringing up the other side of the argument?


  • #610
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Except I've shown you one study criticising the methods used in these studies. I.E not enough of a sample size.
    Which is one study, which doesn't cover all of the other studies pointed out to you, and which has just been ripped apart by oldswinr, whose points you've just ignored.
    philologos wrote: »
    I've also linked to another study with a larger sample size and differing conclusions.
    But it's conclusions are not: "same sex parents are inferior to hetro couples".
    philologos wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is its justifiable to leave marriage alone. It's also justifiable to regard civil partnerships as different.
    How would allowing gay marriage effect straight marriage?
    Why allow hetero couples to get purely civil marriages and offer them the exact same benefits are rights as those who get a religious marriage?

    How is it justifiable to treat them as less than other marriages?
    And how exactly should we be treating them differently?


  • #611
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which is one study, which doesn't cover all of the other studies pointed out to you, and which has just been ripped apart by oldswinr, whose points you've just ignored.

    It made comments about 50 studies cited by the APA concerning this topic. I think it's worthy of consideration.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's conclusions are not: "same sex parents are inferior to hetro couples".

    Yes, but the logical conclusion of other research is.
    King Mob wrote: »
    How would allowing gay marriage effect straight marriage?
    Why allow hetero couples to get purely civil marriages and offer them the exact same benefits are rights as those who get a religious marriage?

    How is it justifiable to treat them as less than other marriages?
    And how exactly should we be treating them differently?

    It is justifiable because they are different as I've explained to you ad nauseum in respect to children. You've ignored many times that mothers and fathers benefit their children in different ways or like doctoremma fob it off completely by saying yes they don't benefit them in the same way, but in different ways which are equally as good (this is unsubstantiated).

    Also, biological parents are best for children, and there's a heck of a lot to back that up. I think that argument in and of itself is good enough in some ways. The Government should be encouraging biological families to be together and to stay together.

    Unless you stop ignoring this position there's not really much further that this argument can really go. We've reached an impasse.

    Which is why I've said to Sonic2ks that we should simply agree to disagree. Why must I agree with redefining marriage? Why must I be a "bigot" or a "homophobe" if I disagree with you despite accepting that people should be able to formalise relationships and adopt even if they disagree with me?

    There's a level of childishness that's tolerated in this debate in society that isn't tolerated in other civilised discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    like doctoremma fob it off completely by saying yes they don't benefit them in the same way, but in different ways which are equally as good (this is unsubstantiated).

    Beg pardon? Fob it off? I raised a perfectly obvious flaw in your conclusion - namely, that it's not supported by your initial premises - and that's fobbing your conclusion off?

    And I reject that my claim is unsubstantiated. The scientific consensus is that children are equally well off with parents of both or either of the same sex (your objections to the research are really the songs of a dying swan). How can children of same sex parents be as well off as children of opposite sex parents if the same sex parents are worse at parenting?


  • #613
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    It made comments about 50 studies cited by the APA concerning this topic. I think it's worthy of consideration.
    But it doesn't as oldwinsr out lined. Nor does it cover all of the studies we posted to you, which you ignored.

    And even then if we just ignore all those problems, as you are, and assume that the study is a good one.
    It's one study.
    philologos wrote: »
    Yes, but the logical conclusion of other research is.
    No it's not. it's your biased twisting and spining of the research.
    None of the research you are clinging to contains the conclusion you are assigning to them. And the conclusions you are reaching do not follow from the conclusions the studies actually reach.
    You are (clearly)not a researcher in this area, as such your conclusion on the conclusions of the studies are complete biased hot air which is not supported by any scientific data.

    Unless the paper specifically states that their conclusion is "same sex parents are inferior compared to hetero couples" , none of the studies you post reach that conclusion. Stating otherwise is lying.
    philologos wrote: »
    It is justifiable because they are different as I've explained to you ad nauseum in respect to children. You've ignored many times that mothers and fathers benefit their children in different ways or like doctoremma fob it off completely by saying yes they don't benefit them in the same way, but in different ways which are equally as good (this is unsubstantiated).
    But you points about children are 1) unsupported and dishonest and 2) irrelevant.
    Again, in previous posts I asked you questions to detail this, but surprisingly you ignored them.

    You have no objection to infertile couples marrying. Or straight couples who choose to adopt or those who choose never to have children. Or even hetero and same sex couples who have children using in vitro techniques.
    And since these aren't any different to gay couples, it's clear that children aren't the decidign factor.
    philologos wrote: »
    Also, biological parents are best for children, and there's a heck of a lot to back that up. I think that argument in and of itself is good enough in some ways. The Government should be encouraging biological families to be together and to stay together.

    Unless you stop ignoring this position there's not really much further that this argument can really go. We've reached an impasse.
    Gay parents aren't going to be stealing children. Gay people getting married are not going to stop straight people getting married. Gay people getting married are not going to force straight people to get divorced.

    I'm ignoring this point because it's laughable.
    philologos wrote: »
    Which is why I've said to Sonic2ks that we should simply agree to disagree. Why must I agree with redefining marriage? Why must I be a "bigot" or a "homophobe" if I disagree with you despite accepting that people should be able to formalise relationships and adopt even if they disagree with me?

    There's a level of childishness that's tolerated in this debate in society that isn't tolerated in other civilised discussion.
    Because it's not "redefining" anything. It's granting people equal rights.
    It's no different, no matter how much you deny it, from those who opposed mixed race couples and they used exactly the same arguments you are.


  • #614
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    It made comments about 50 studies cited by the APA concerning this topic. I think it's worthy of consideration.



    Yes, but the logical conclusion of other research is.



    It is justifiable because they are different as I've explained to you ad nauseum in respect to children. You've ignored many times that mothers and fathers benefit their children in different ways or like doctoremma fob it off completely by saying yes they don't benefit them in the same way, but in different ways which are equally as good (this is unsubstantiated).

    Also, biological parents are best for children, and there's a heck of a lot to back that up. I think that argument in and of itself is good enough in some ways. The Government should be encouraging biological families to be together and to stay together.

    Unless you stop ignoring this position there's not really much further that this argument can really go. We've reached an impasse.

    Which is why I've said to Sonic2ks that we should simply agree to disagree. Why must I agree with redefining marriage? Why must I be a "bigot" or a "homophobe" if I disagree with you despite accepting that people should be able to formalise relationships and adopt even if they disagree with me?

    There's a level of childishness that's tolerated in this debate in society that isn't tolerated in other civilised discussion.

    I am sorry Philogos , but the only fob it off merchant at this stage is you.

    You ignore posts in reply to yours, that must have taken considerable time and effort to produce , and you do this consistently and just carry on as if they don't exist.

    do you have a reply to ordernwiser's post debunking your various studies or are you just going to fob that off also.


  • #615
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    No it's not. it's your biased twisting and spining of the research.
    None of the research you are clinging to contains the conclusion you are assigning to them. And the conclusions you are reaching do not follow from the conclusions the studies actually reach.
    You are (clearly)not a researcher in this area, as such your conclusion on the conclusions of the studies are complete biased hot air which is not supported by any scientific data.

    You're not a researcher in that area either as far as I can tell. Therefore who are you to tell me that?

    For the record, I think oldrnwisr's conclusion is equally biased. I'm not denying that I have beliefs concerning this issue.

    It's a lie to claim that this issue isn't contested though.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Unless the paper specifically states that their conclusion is "same sex parents are inferior compared to hetero couples" , none of the studies you post reach that conclusion. Stating otherwise is lying.

    No it isn't. The logical conclusion of what I've presented both concerning gender roles, and biological parents is that a man and a woman are best.

    That isn't lying. That's simply following the research to its logical conclusion.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But you points about children are 1) unsupported and dishonest and 2) irrelevant.
    Again, in previous posts I asked you questions to detail this, but surprisingly you ignored them.

    No they aren't.

    By the by, you can't talk about ignoring posts. You compared the research on this issue to being like the debate concerning evolution amongst some YEC's. You still haven't conceded properly that there is peer reviewed research which disagrees with your conclusion and with oldrnwisrs conclusion.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You have no objection to infertile couples marrying. Or straight couples who choose to adopt or those who choose never to have children. Or even hetero and same sex couples who have children using in vitro techniques.
    And since these aren't any different to gay couples, it's clear that children aren't the decidign factor.

    Yes they are. For the umpteenth time they can provide kids with a mum and a dad.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Gay parents aren't going to be stealing children. Gay people getting married are not going to stop straight people getting married. Gay people getting married are not going to force straight people to get divorced.

    I'm ignoring this point because it's laughable.

    If I said that they were stealing their children it might be a valid point, but I didn't :)

    Although messing around with biology, through sperm donation or surrogate mothers or other means does leave more children without their biological parents.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because it's not "redefining" anything. It's granting people equal rights.
    It's no different, no matter how much you deny it, from those who opposed mixed race couples and they used exactly the same arguments you are.

    If the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and you change that definition. That's redefining.

    The race issue has already been covered. It's disingenuous to say the least. It's because some people are so desperate to come the childish conclusion that those who disagree with redefining marriage are like racists.

    Race doesn't change family structure. The gender of both parents does. Or a lack of a parent and so on.


  • #616
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Speaking of ignoring posts:

    Penn wrote: »
    Why does it always come down to children? Again, some hetero couples cannot have children. Some hetero couples shouldn't have children (drug addicts etc). And children can be had outside of marriage. Added to that, same sex couples cannot biologically have children. I agree. So why are you bringing children up at all? Is that the only reason for marriage?

    Why shouldn't same sex couples be allowed to get married, solely for the purposes of expressing their love and commitment to each other? My sister and her boyfriend never want children. Should they not be allowed to get married? If they wanted to get married, it wouldn't be anything to do with children, it would be an expression of love and commitment. Civil Partnerships are not the same thing as marriage and you know it, so why shouldn't same sex couples be allowed to get married?

    And I ask, hopefully for the final time, is the redefinition of the word marriage more important than giving people equal human rights?


  • #617
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn wrote: »
    Speaking of ignoring posts:

    Firstly, sometimes I have other things to do than to respond to posts :)
    Secondly, in this case I already answered that in another post. If I cover something in another post, I'm more than likely going to skim over that ask the exact same question that has been asked 50+ times in the thread already. Surely you can understand how that gets just a little tedious.

    I don't believe this is an issue of equality (All people can get married, marriage is a union between a man and a woman). It's about changing marriage. Civil partnership is sufficient in terms of formalising a relationship.

    A homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are fundamentally different, therefore I think they should be recognised differently.


  • #618
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    This is basically what I've read over the last two pages.

    Can you replace an apple with an orange in your diet? Is one better than the other or are they both the same.

    Philologos : No you can't. Apples are clearly the preferred choice for your diet. This is because studies about ... apples .... apples.....apples....more apples.


    Everyone else     : But what about Oranges? Or apples compared with oranges.

    Philologos     : Yes but the logical conclusion of other apple based research is.

    Everyone else     : Oranges!? What about apples compared with oranges?


    Philologos : The logical conclusion of other apple based research is.

    . . . .


  • #619
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Firstly, sometimes I have other things to do than to respond to posts :)

    Your post count coupled with the lenght of your posts clearly shows otherwise. You respond often and at great length when you find easy things to reply to or when it suits your ends. It is responding to posts with content or questions that defeat your position or debunk your nonsense that you refuse to do. For example we are all still waiting for you to perform the simple process of:

    1) Listing all the things that a child actually requires for a successful and healthy upbringing such as nurture, protection, education, food, love, security and so forth.
    2) Show a single thing on your resulting list that somehow one parental configuration performs by definition better than any other.

    Why do you ignore this question every time it is asked? Quite simply because you know there is nothing to answer 2 with and hence your entire mantra of "One man and one woman is the ideal" is fantasy nonsense that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by anything more than your willingness to repeat it over and over.


  • #620
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    You're not a researcher in that area either as far as I can tell. Therefore who are you to tell me that?
    Because I am not reaching conclusions that extend from the conclusions of papers. You are.
    You are reaching a conclusion that is not actually stated in any of the research you are quoting.
    philologos wrote: »
    For the record, I think oldrnwisr's conclusion is equally biased. I'm not denying that I have beliefs concerning this issue.
    So then address his detailed post and back that up. He lists several points that totally destroy the paper you like.

    And again, even if he didn't. It's one paper vs dozens you've been provided with.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's a lie to claim that this issue isn't contested though.
    we've asked you repeatedly to back this up. You've provided one biased paper which has been shown to be crap.

    Show us what your paper is asking for. Provide one single study that directly compares same sex and hetero couples and finds one is more beneficial.

    Show us one secular national organisation that argees with your stance.

    Cause otherwise, your debate is no better than the creationist or global warming deniers.
    philologos wrote: »
    No it isn't. The logical conclusion of what I've presented both concerning gender roles, and biological parents is that a man and a woman are best.

    That isn't lying. That's simply following the research to its logical conclusion.
    But it's not the logical conclusion. It's you taking two disparate facts and trying them together with no proof at all to reach a conclusion neither reach, while ignoring the research done that actually does address the question.
    philologos wrote: »
    No they aren't.

    By the by, you can't talk about ignoring posts. You compared the research on this issue to being like the debate concerning evolution amongst some YEC's. You still haven't conceded properly that there is peer reviewed research which disagrees with your conclusion and with oldrnwisrs conclusion.
    I never said anything about the veracity about the conclusions of the papers you are espousing (aside from the one that was just destroyed). I am calling in to question your biased, uniformed and unsupported conclusion you made about them.
    philologos wrote: »
    Yes they are. For the umpteenth time they can provide kids with a mum and a dad.
    Not the ones that can't or choose not to have children. Are these people married or not?

    If yes, then your objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with children.

    Further you've already admitted that there is no issue what so ever with gays adopting, so if straigh couples can adopt, why can't gays get married?
    philologos wrote: »
    If I said that they were stealing their children it might be a valid point, but I didn't :)

    Although messing around with biology, through sperm donation or surrogate mothers or other means does leave more children without their biological parents.
    First, you're going to have to back that claim up with something, then actually prove it would be caused by gay marriage, then explain what relevance it would have.
    philologos wrote: »
    If the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and you change that definition. That's redefining.

    The race issue has already been covered. It's disingenuous to say the least. It's because some people are so desperate to come the childish conclusion that those who disagree with redefining marriage are like racists.

    Race doesn't change family structure. The gender of both parents does. Or a lack of a parent and so on.
    And the definition of marriage used to be between a man and a woman of the same race.
    Race changes family structure in the same way gender does. In the same way any difference between people does.

    And even if gay parenting somehow altered the family dynamic so drastically, you have no evidence that such a thing is detrimental to anyone.

    You've already admitted that, but you are pretending otherwise, jsut as you ignore any other facts that you don't like.


  • #621
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Jernal wrote: »
    This is basically what I've read over the last two pages.

    Can you replace an apple with an orange in your diet? Is one better than the other or are they both the same.

    Philologos : No you can't. Apples are clearly the preferred choice for your diet. This is because studies about ... apples .... apples.....apples....more apples.


    Everyone else     : But what about Oranges? Or apples compared with oranges.

    Philologos     : Yes but the logical conclusion of other apple based research is.

    Everyone else     : Oranges!? What about apples compared with oranges?


    Philologos : The logical conclusion of other apple based research is.

    . . . .
    Jernal, you are me. I've been mulling over a fruit-based analogy all day!


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    Dennis Lively Gypsum
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dennis Lively Gypsum


    ignoring such a well written extensive post as oldrnwisr is extremely rude, especially when you dismiss it as fobbing off just because you don't agree with it
    and then you go on to accuse everyone else of being mean "just because they don't agree with you"
    really, you've made it quite clear you have zero interest in honest debate on the issue, you have done nothing but ignore valid points, repeated your old mantra o f "i don't have time" when you ignore the hard posts and deal with the easy ones and get called on it, and do nothing but repeatedly state "there are studies im not linking that have looked into these things" and disregarded everything else
    unbelievable
    There's a level of childishness that's tolerated in this debate in society
    Yes, you certainly have been tolerated well past any reasonable point


  • #623
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob: I was going to respond to your post, but it became very clear that I was just repeating myself.

    It's entirely valid to bring up papers on gender roles in parenting when you're talking about whether or not a man can replace a mother and a woman a father. I honestly don't care for your complaints.

    I might get around to oldrnwisr's post later.


  • #624
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: I was going to respond to your post, but it became very clear that I was just repeating myself.
    You would be repeating yourself because you are not addressing my points and questions. That's not my fault.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's entirely valid to bring up papers on gender roles in parenting when you're talking about whether or not a man can replace a mother and a woman a father. I honestly don't care for your complaints.
    That's great, but you are insisting that your research shows that both genders are required or more beneficial. This is not the conclusion reached by the research you quote.
    Again, unless that's in the actual paper, you cannot conclude that yourself.

    All of the research that actually compares like for like (which yours does not do) does not support your stance. And further you cannot provide such a study that does.

    You've already agreed that gay adoption is not detrimental, and that you consider other similar marriage situations to be valid marriages. Therefore your entire objection based on your sloppy, dishonest research is irrelevant in the first place.

    If you have no issue calling the union between people who wish to adopt, or never have children or people who only get a civil marriage, marriage, you have no valid reason at all to object to gay marriage.
    philologos wrote: »
    I might get around to oldrnwisr's post later.
    No you won't. It's too well thought out and well researched. You'll ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist like you always do with points you can't answer.


  • #625
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's great, but you are insisting that your research shows that both genders are required or more beneficial. This is not the conclusion reached by the research you quote.
    Again, unless that's in the actual paper, you cannot conclude that yourself.

    If the papers show that fathers and mothers have unique benefit in respect to their children (they do talk about benefit, not just how they operate). Then logically, if one attempts to replace either, that unique benefit is gone. Until you can show me clearly that that does not logically follow, that seems perfectly reasonable to hold to.

    That's a reasonable conclusion and there's nothing "sloppy" about that no matter how much you protest. The discussion isn't really worth having unless you're genuinely willing to consider that.

    My issue isn't with formalising a union, or with allowing adoption (with genuine consideration for the best interests of the child).

    My issue is with claiming that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one are the same thing. In so far as that is true, I support recognising them differently.


  • #626
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    If the papers show that there fathers and mothers have unique benefit in respect to their children. Then logically, if one attempts to replace either, that unique benefit is gone. Until you can show me clearly that that does not logically follow, that seems perfectly reasonable to hold to.

    That's a reasonable conclusion and there's nothing "sloppy" about that no matter how much you protest. The discussion isn't really worth having unless you're genuinely willing to consider that.
    Does the paper you are quoting specifically say any of that? Yes or no?
    Does you paper specifically say that hetero parents are better? Yes or no?

    Cause if it doesn't that's not the what the research says, and anything else is crap you've made up.
    It's not a logical conclusion and it's not supported by the research.
    philologos wrote: »
    My issue isn't with formalising a union, or with allowing adoption (with genuine consideration for the best interests of the child).
    So then it's not about children then?

    Which benefits specifically should straight married people have that gay people should not have in their civil unions?
    More tax cuts? Being considered more for inheritance and visiting in hospitals etc?

    Or would civil unions offer all the exact same benefits as "real marriage"?
    philologos wrote: »
    My issue is with claiming that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one are the same thing. In so far as that is true, I support recognising them differently.
    Yes they are different. But why should we treat them differently? A mixed race couple is different to a same race couple is it not?


  • #627
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    If the papers show that fathers and mothers have unique benefit in respect to their children (they do talk about benefit, not just how they operate). Then logically, if one attempts to replace either, that unique benefit is gone. Until you can show me clearly that that does not logically follow, that seems perfectly reasonable to hold to.

    That's a reasonable conclusion and there's nothing "sloppy" about that no matter how much you protest. The discussion isn't really worth having unless you're genuinely willing to consider that.

    You need to ask yourself why the researchers in the studies you're referring to didn't come to the same logical and reasonable conclusion.
    philologos wrote: »
    My issue is with claiming that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one are the same thing. In so far as that is true, I support recognising them differently.

    They are the same thing, in so far as any two relationships can be the same. All that's different is the gender of the participants.

    If a game of football is played by a mixed sex team instead of an all male or all female team, it's still a game of football. It doesn't suddenly become rubgy, or tennis, or golf.


  • #628
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If a game of football is played by a mixed sex team instead of an all male or all female team, it's still a game of football. It doesn't suddenly become rubgy, or tennis, or golf.
    Possibly the best analogy so far. Will be robbing for future use.


  • #629
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Why do people always approach the adoption issue as though such rights are required for same sex couples to raise children?

    Yes the research shows there's no problem with gay parents, but that's completely irrelevant, because there already are same sex couples raising children in Ireland, lots of them, when it comes to adoption rights what you're really asking is if it's right that those children be denied the same level of security as their peers just because their parents are the same gender.


  • #630
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel: I'm sure you know as well as I do that family structure is not like a game of football.

    Oh, and the studies are about child development and gender, so it's not talking about LGBT unions. However, if their conclusions are true, it has consequence for this debate. That's why they shouldn't be ignored, and I'm going to keep bringing them up until I hear a half good reason as to why they don't have any bearing.

    King Mob: As I've just said I'm going to keep bringing up gender role models in respect to this debate, because it's relevant. Not answering a post as you like, is not the same thing as not answering it at all.

    For something fresh to talk about - Here's an interesting article I read on The Gospel Coalition website on Christian engagement in societal issues. It could prompt some fruitful discussion:
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/08/03/the-three-rs-of-christian-engagement-in-the-culture-war/
    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Why do people always approach the adoption issue as though such rights are required for same sex couples to raise children?

    Yes the research shows there's no problem with gay parents, but that's completely irrelevant, because there already are same sex couples raising children in Ireland, lots of them, when it comes to adoption rights what you're really asking is if it's right that those children be denied the same level of security as their peers just because their parents are the same gender.

    The funny thing is, I've not opposed adoption rights for civil partners on this thread. I'm simply saying a union between a man and a woman differs to a homosexual relationship.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    You're not a researcher in that area either as far as I can tell. Therefore who are you to tell me that?

    For the record, I think oldrnwisr's conclusion is equally biased. I'm not denying that I have beliefs concerning this issue.

    It's a lie to claim that this issue isn't contested though.



    No it isn't. The logical conclusion of what I've presented both concerning gender roles, and biological parents is that a man and a woman are best.

    That isn't lying. That's simply following the research to its logical conclusion.



    No they aren't.

    By the by, you can't talk about ignoring posts. You compared the research on this issue to being like the debate concerning evolution amongst some YEC's. You still haven't conceded properly that there is peer reviewed research which disagrees with your conclusion and with oldrnwisrs conclusion.



    Yes they are. For the umpteenth time they can provide kids with a mum and a dad.



    If I said that they were stealing their children it might be a valid point, but I didn't :)

    Although messing around with biology, through sperm donation or surrogate mothers or other means does leave more children without their biological parents.



    If the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and you change that definition. That's redefining.

    The race issue has already been covered. It's disingenuous to say the least. It's because some people are so desperate to come the childish conclusion that those who disagree with redefining marriage are like racists.

    Race doesn't change family structure. The gender of both parents does. Or a lack of a parent and so on.

    Are you going to respond to oldernwiser's post or not ? the phrase ''put up or shut up '' comes to mind


Advertisement