posted
estavares, So far as I can see, you haven't offered me a reason to believe that allowing gays to marry is diluting marriage except for saying that it changes it, much like allowing interracial marriages, etc. changed it. What makes same sex marriage likely to open to floodgates of people being able to marry anything they want while interracial or interfaith marriages not open these floodgates?
From what I can see, you haven't offered any reason for why letting gays marry constitutes a lowering of our standards except for saying that letting gays marry is a lowering of our standards.
---
And there, I've flipped over to a new page, so you won't have to look at this:
posted
I'm pretty sure that "you must be the same race" was never considered an integral part of marriage, and people only raised the issue when they were suddenly confronted with it, and it made them uncomfortable. I mean, an interracial marriage was still a marriage ... it was just one that some people didn't like. It was "wrong" the way Romeo and Juliet's marriage was "wrong" ... people from different "tribes" who didn't like each other didn't like their children to marry.
However, people in our culture HAVE considered "man and wife" to be an integral part of the definition of a marriage for a long time, telling their sons to find a good woman and their daughters to find a good man, etc, for generations, even without being confronted with gay marriage as a real possibility.
I'm not saying your position is necessarily right or wrong here. I'm just saying that the comparison to interracial marriage doesn't establish a good equivalence. Allowing interracial marriages didn't change the definition of marriage, legally or culturally, anymore than desegregation changed the definition of "school" or "restaurant" or "bus". Gay marriage WOULD be a much more dramatic change.
EDIT: And think you, by the way, for rolling over the page
SECOND EDIT: And right when I thank you, you go and edit your post to make my gratitude completely undeserved. [sigh]
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about interfaith marriages? Wasn't that obviously a direct change to the fundamental defintion of marriage?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That still would strike me as a cross-tribe marriage, which is a pretty well-known and well-established way for a marriage to go. It's a more significant difference because it often means that the marriage and the child-rearing will be handled in ways that totally freak out the parents on one or both sides. But it's still Romeo and Juliet.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ehh...I'm inclined to disagree, but the point isn't really all that important. The changes don't need to be comparable to argue that the idea that changing something doesn't mean that you abandon any standards whatsoever. What estes is saying only works if you assume that allowing gay marriage is intrinsicly bad or that the people who are pushing for change don't want standards for marriage, neither or which are accurate.
On a side note, I put the quote in as a joke. If it really does bother you, I'll take it out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Yes, we should rid our minds of all standards, conventions and beliefs since all they do is create a rigid lifestyle for all. Rid your polluted mind of any principles or values that you hold, if only to give into to someone else's definitions."
I'm pretty sure no one used this argument.
It was more at what was being implied that I was being sarcastic about.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's a really funny joke, so you should leave it up The rub is that it's only funny because it REALLY DOES annoy me But I'll survive until the next page.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:hh...I'm inclined to disagree, but the point isn't really all that important.
Yeah, actually it is, because it shows that your proof of historical examples don't apply. This isn't about social attitudes. There is a fundimental difference between a man and a woman haxing a married, sexual relationship and two men having the same. Like it or not, we are trying to redefine what it means to be human, what is considered reprehensible and what is considered appropriate.
It's like the abortion issue. There was a time when aborting a baby, regardless of age of gestation, was considered murder. Society has since redefined the criteria, so it's okay BEFORE this point but a crime AFTER this point. Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, we redefined a core physical and social construct.
I never said that proponents for gay marriage don't want standards for marriage. I know most believe this is the means by which to reward committed relationships. But opponents see it much differently. They see giving legal acceptance and equal benefits to every alternative lifestyle makes marriage into a mockery.
You give everybody a discount on their TV, and there's no discount anymore. It's a new price. It's not the same. And when the TV manufacturer goes out of business because everybody's paying less than it cost to make it, we'll wonder why the next generation of TVs are shoddy imitations not worth their weight in plastic.
quote:You're not serious with this surely. Do you really see a world where people are forcing people not to pray, not to sing Christmas carols? That's not actually happening. I'm pretty sure even Geoff or Dags will tell you that.
Three years ago my son participated in his Winter Concert. There were three Kwanzaa songs, three Hanukka songs, and the rest were about winter. No carols featuring Christ. Nothing. Yet the diversity statistics show an overwhelming majority of these kids do not celebrate either holiday. Those voices shouting for PC made sure that not only was the minority over-represented, but that the majority had no voice at all.
It happens all the time. I won't even begin to address the banning of prayer at a whole variety of events, regardless if the majority were of the same faith. That's the irony of such debates; the very same tactics exist on both sides, and to presume one gets it worse than another reveals one's bias.
I know those in a minority struggle to feel equal and to enjoy their chance to express their own opinions. I respect that. But the pendulum swings too far to the other side occasionally.
My original beef with this whole issue is that while I disagree with gay marriage (and I am free to hold that opinion) I strongly believe that any changes to current law must be done by the people. Not judges. Not politicians. Homosexuality was considered an abomination when most of our state constitutions were drafted, so to think that one can interpret its inclusion under the definition of marriage is ludicrous.
For me, this should have been a U.S. Constitutional amendment, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The next best thing is to amend and/or clarify state constitutions, which has been happening in some states. This should NEVER be the forum for activist judges to redefine core social constructs by their own opinion.
If the majority voted to include gay marriage as part of the definition then the issue has been resolved, hasn't it? I may disagree, and I may believe that marriage continues to become a mockery, but I would respect the rule of law. But I do not respect those who try to redefine marriage through underhanded means.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, You have yet to show why same sex marriage is a bad thing. All you keep doing is stating it. Why does it make a mockery of marriage? Why does it cheapen it?
Your argument seems to come down to "Because I don't like it." That's not an adequate justification. If you can give reasons for why it's reprehensible for people of the same sex to have sex, why it's a bad thing for our society, you should do it.
---
While I don't necessarily agree with the not having Christimas carols sung bit, I don't see how this is a case of people not allowing peopel to sing Christimas carols. Are you saying that your son was unable to sing Christmas carols? Or are you saying that the school didn't include Christmas carols in this one specific instance?
Likewise, prayer is not actually banned from public events. You are free to pray as much as you want. No one will stop you. What has been disallowed is compelling people to pray and/or giving the appearance that certain religions are being officially sponsored. Just because you don't get to show other people that Christianity is the semi-official religion doesn't mean that you are prevented from practicing it. Or are you saying that people are making it so you can't pray or otherwise follow your religion?
---
Again, I think allowing same sex marriage will have good effects on both gay couples and society itself, in much the same way that I think that real, strong heterosexual marriages have good effects. I've yet to see you show me why this is wrong or if it isn't wrong, why allowing gay marriage is a bad idea. All I keep seeing is the restatement that it's wrong and the assertion that America is persecuting Christians.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why can't I legally have sex when I'm fourteen?"
That sort of thing can't be used as an exemple of declining standards becasue if you go back far enough in history sex at 14 was perfectly fine. It's only in the last hundred years or so sex at 14 has become a big taboo thing.
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, an interracial marriage was still a marriage ... it was just one that some people didn't like.
They "didn't like" it to the point that laws were passed against it. I think that qualifies for saying such marriages weren't real, at least to the extent that marriage is a contract enforceable by law. And that's the part we're discussing anyway, since nobody has ever stopped gay (or interracial) couples from having a ceremony to themnselves.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It sounds like you want some kind of scientific study showing someone died because they allowed gay marriage (or something like that). You'll never find it and, I bet if you did, you would dismiss it. I have given reasons...but you don't agree with them, so you dismiss them outright.
You will find study after study after study showing man/woman marriage is by far the best means to raise a child and for social stability. Search them out on Google; there's plenty to be found, and if that's not enough I don't know what else to say. Why reward something that is substandard?
Bottom-line, this is where it gets tricky; what you define as negative and what I define as negative use much different criteria. It's like both sides trying to justify ther need for a shoe as a playing piece in Monopoly by using the written rules of Sorry and Balderdash. Neither side can really prove their assertion (which is why the common rebuttal on such threads is "Why don't you prove it first," and then no one follows up).
Nobody can really prove it, because it's based on ideals. Since gay marriage advocates are trying to change the staus quo, the burden of proof is on them. But, as usual, accountability is placed elsewhere. Selfishness expects everyone else to justify themselves.
This comes full circle in that some people are indeed motivated by their faith. They accept doctrine as fact, and therefore use a criteria considered by others to be bunk. In that way, neither will ever agree...but we should be willing to respect each other's opinion on the matter.
BTW, be careful about putting words where they did not occur. I never said America was persecuting Christians. All I said was that this business of forcing one ideology over another happens on all sides.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:since nobody has ever stopped gay (or interracial) couples from having a ceremony to themnselves.
Not strictly true. The law in Loving v. Virginia prohibited interracial marriage. It specifically banned people from going out of state to marry, and stated that "The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."
It wasn't the ceremony; it was the marriage.
The idea is over a hundred years old. Mormons were convicted of polygamy and sentenced to jail on the basis of thier private ceremonies.
posted
estavares, The whole thing is, I don't see you as having provided reasons. For me, your arguments don't work unless you start out with the idea that homosexuality is wrong and that same sex marriage is wrong as your starting point. I honestly don't see where you've offered up tangible reasons for believing these things. If you could point out where you feel you've done this, perhaps we could explore why we have different impressions.
I don't know that our ideas of damage are all that different. The only damage that I've seen you directly talk about is that it will weaken marriage (which I would agree would be damaging, if I had any reason to believe that it would occur) and that homosexuality would be more acceptable (which definitely shows a difference in our consideration of damage, but is also something I'm pretty sure you're aware, in the context of this discussion, is not a legitimate example of damage in and of itself).
The idea that children raised by homosexuals are worse off would be a concrete argument (though there are plenty of problems with it). However, as far as I can tell, that's not actually correct. I'd be interested in seeing all these studies. From what I've seen of reputable, peer-reviewed studies, children reared by homosexual parents fare as well as heterosexual parents. Here's a thread we had about one of these studies. mackillian, one of the more concientious posters at Hatrack and one who works as a social worker dealing with kids, collected some of the research on this and posted an essay on it here and here. Here's another post from Hatrack detailing studies that show that the research seems to suggest that homosexual parents are not such a bad idea.
There are plenty of claims that homosexuals parents intrinsically damage their children, but there seems to be precious little reputable evidence that this is so, and quite a bit that suggests the opposite. Of course, I'm nowhere near an expert in this area and there could be whole areas in the literature that I'm unfamiliar with. Maybe you could point them out to me, if they exist?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In todays world it would be very hard. Society teaches us these days that being successful financially is more important then being successful in family life. I hate to say it but that's the message given to young people these days, at least from my perspective.
If you want my complete answer to what's wrong with American society and how to fix it, you're going to have to wait a few years before I start publishing my books on it (seriously), but I'm in the middle of a very compressed run down starting around here.
However, consider, what is society? Who makes it up? Who decides what it "tells you"? Why does it have power to determine what people do? How does this power work?
Society and what it tells people is a dynamic concept. Likewise, it's influence is neither fixed nor insurmountable.
posted
Oy, there's the rub. There are plenty of studies and opinions stating the very opposite, and that studies tend to downplay any differences seen for fear of being seen as anti-gay.
Here's a sampling, not meant to inclusive, though the first one is intriguing. Regardless if someone agrees with them or not, they exist:
And yes, opponents like myself do base much of their argument on the idea that homosexuality is morally wrong. We have every right to stand up against something we believe inconsistent with the health and happiness of our society. And proponents for gay marriage do the exact same thing––fight against a social attitude they feel is morally wrong.
It's like in one of the articles it states:
"We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science," he said. "It will be decided based on beliefs and convictions."
I agree. It is one thing to allow people to live their lives and choose the path they wish to take, and I've plenty of homosexual collegues whom I count as good friends. But we have a right to fight granting legal and social privileges to something that ultimately isn't real.
I imagine there is another option, but calling it "marriage" with the exact same benefits is not the solution.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narth? Like I'd believe those people. They are notorious for spreading lies, half-truths and stereotypes when it comes to homosexuality. They don't even do solid studies with a control when it comes to their ex-gay data. 30%-70%? 65%? Please. More like 0%. They quote Spitzer, who is responsible for homosexuality being taken off the list of disorders, but his scientific methods were questionable and consisted of calling people who were ex-gay and asking them if they had any homosexual attraction. Of course they would say no. He didn't take any of them and attach electrodes to them to study their sexual arousal while viewing sexually explicit material. Also, has anyone conducted studies on extended families? I can't help thinking that an extended family is even better for raising a kid than a nuclear family. At least it insures that someone can be there for the kids when the parents have to work. And what about children raised by their grandparents? I'd be interested in those sort of studies since I was raised by mine.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hence why basing one's life on studies isn't very effective. No one accepts anything they disagree with anyway, so it still boils down to personal belief...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of disagreeing with them. It's just that their studies are seriously flawed and biased! They know nothing about homosexuality other than the negative stereotypes about it like promiscuity. They don't realize that most of the problems that gay people experience is NOT because of being gay. Being homosexual doesn't cause AIDS, doesn't cause drug abuse, but society's attitudes towards homosexuality affect a person's self worth! As long as they keep spreading these stereotypes and lies, nothing will change. Plus, it's simple not logical. If homosexuality were caused by environment, then why do so many prominant conservatives have gay children or siblings? If homosexuality were curable, then why did Paulk get caught in a gay bar, why are there so many so-called reparative therapist that take advantage of their patients? And, why does it take a ton of isolation, thousands of dollars of so-called therapy just to teach a person to repress their natural sexuality? It wouldn't work on a straight person and it sure as heck doesn't work on someone who is gay.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, just stating that a study is biased doesn't make it so. You do have to provide SOME kind of rebuttal. ANd I don't think this counts:
quote:If homosexuality were caused by environment, then why do so many prominant conservatives have gay children or siblings?
Did anyone assert that being raised in a liberal household was the primary environmental factor causing homosexuality? And how does this example indicate that homosexuality is MORE likely to be genetic? Or are you saying it is environmentally caused, but in the womb, and not during childhood?
posted
No, but most of these ex-gay programs state that homosexuality is caused by inadequate parenting. Which casts a shadow over all of these people like Alan Keyes and the vice president. It's not logical because not every gay person has had a bad childhood, and not everyonewho has had a bad childhood turns out gay. See the books Anything but Straight and Stranger at the Gate. Anything but Straight is very revealing about how ineffective these ex-gay programs really are. As long as a person has a lot of strict structure controlling every aspect of their lives they can repress their sexuality. Most of the programs no longer even say they can "cure" homosexuality... It's such a huge fraud. But, right now I must force myself to go to work and be bored for hours upon end.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Syn, is that you're naturally biased toward your position and you read material that reinforces it, so of course you feel the way you do. It proves my point. It boils down to believing those studies that fit our own personal agenda.
There's nothing really wrong with that (we all do the same thing in our own way) but it shows why relying only on studies doesn't really solve anything. Especially when the majority of us on this board aren't social scientists and haven't performed any studies to disprove much of anything.
Bottom-line, we end up following those personal convictions that are far more difficult to quantify.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, There's a word for when you don't let your biases dictate what you believe. It's called integrity. Because of my training and inclinations, I hold scientific integrity as very important. I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I and others don't have any. There are actually reasons that have been well-established why we should have more confidence that one thing is more accurate than another. If you can show me reputable evidence, I'll consider it.
Speaking of which, what in the three things you posted do you think supports your idea that homosexual parents are intrinsicly substandard? I read through them all and I didn't see it. The one didn't seem to touch on parenting at all, the other only offered up "Come on, you know that one male and one female parent is best, even though I don't have any evidence to back it up." and the third was supportive of the claim that homosexual parents are not substandard. I'm not sure why you thought that the things you posted supported your assertion.
posted
yeah and look at where the studies came from, the "family research council, defending faith, family, and freedom"... hmmmm, i wonder if a council whose mandate is to defend faith is going to consider any evidence in favor of same sex marriages?
also, the second article only provides evidence VS. the evidence (well at least they are agknowledging that there is evidence ), while totally neglecting the "for" side. Furthermore, like Squicky said, the third article only states that children of same sex couples are sometimes different (but different doesn't mean worse, infact, alot of the supposed differences are actually positive ones) than their heterosexual counterparts.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did I ever imply you have no integrity?
You're reading too far into (and taking too personally) my assertion that biases exist at all levels, regardless of how much we want to claim a balanced approach. To rely simply on science is one kind of bias; to rely simply on spiritual promptings is another. We narrow our vision every day by the choices we make and the opinions we hold, because they mesh with that inner standard we believe in how the world works.
There is no such thing as an objective human. There never has been.
You want absolute proof one way or another. The effects of homosexual marriage and child-rearing are long-term, have recieved little to no real studies, and studies are limited as people fear they'll be dismissed as political anyway. Even if they did prove no lasting difference in marriage or child-rearing, opponents would still feel the same. Because their belief stems from a different source.
A hundred years ago we would have had this discussion about cigarette smoking, and you would have demanded proof when there was none to provide. But we know the truth of its effects on health now, don't we? That's, IMHO, the hazard of relying solely on science and present facts. There must be a standard that goes beyond such limitations––but that standard varies from person to person, and we have that right to differ. It still boils down to ideology in the end.
BTW, as I had said, the links not meant to be inclusive or to prove anything. The Fox News link is an excellent example of exactly my point. No one is objective. Harms to children could be revealed but repressed for fear of appearing political in nature. It shows that science can be muddied by personal convictions on all sides.
The parenting portion is discussed (briefly) under the first link under the heading "Implications for Homosexual Parenting" with the idea that homosexual unions prove far less stable and are at a higher risk for various risks.
My point of these links was to show that for every study and opinion and expert on one side, they exist on another.
So whose science is more accurate?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My point of these links was to show that for every study and opinion and expert on one side, they exist on another.
No there isn't. You links don't show that there are reasons to think that gay couples provide substandard parenting. In fact, the only one with a reputable source who could legitimately claim to be an expert supports the opposite claim. Your links were neither of any where near equal weight from the ones I provided nor did they in any way establish what you claimed they did. The science is very very clearly on my side.
You're making an espistemological error in equating science with the world of spiritual values. They are both valid sources of informaiton, but they have different scopes. When we're talking about observable material effects, science trumps the spiritual, as this is beyond the scope of the spiritual world. Were we talking about ultimate values, science would be useless while the spiritual would reign supreme. They are not equal. "My God said it's bad." is not a valid counterwieght to "Nearly all reputable studies show that having gay parents don't lead to significantly worse mental health for children than having straight parents."
Likewise, the system and philosophy of laws and government that America follows does not treat these things as equally legitimate sources. You don't get to legilate based off of your values. You are, however, free to live your life in accordance with these values.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
its like he took the words right out of my mouth. i might add, science and religion are not opposites in the sense that you can validly refute a scientific claims with a religious one. you cannot say, this study says this, but this bible passage says this with any credibility in your rebuttal.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't get to legilate based off of your values.
This just isn't true. It's not unconstitutional to legislate based off values. In this country, we get to legislate what our elected representatives will enact, with relatively few checks enforced by the judiciary. The representatives are checked by their anticipation of what the judiciary will do and by the periodic political check of elections.
I happen to think as much room as possible should be left up to people's consciences. This is why I favor lifting restrictions on same sex civil marriage. I think your statement would be true if rephrased "You shouldn't legislate based solely off of your values." But as you phrased it it's highly inaccurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I was talking about the philosophy as well as the system. You're not specifically prevented from doing this based on the system we've said up, but it's a big prohibition in the underlying philosophy. I don't think looking at it that way, it's highly inaccurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a fair statement of the philosophy that underwrote both the Declaration and the Constitution when drafted.
Unfortunately, a large segment of the population does not subscribe to that philosophy. They support the institutions created using that philosophy, but do not hold with the prohibition you describe. (This spans the political spectrum, by the way.) I don't think merely being a citizen of this country means you've agreed to the philosophical underpinnings of those institutions. The institutions contain the limits on the use of values in legislation, and those are the limits citizens are bound to respect. Not the aspirations of the underlying philosophy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting idea, of a people that accept the artifacts of a certain philosophy but don't accept the philosophy itself.
I support the spirit of the system much more than I do the system, but that's because I feel strongly in the Enlightenment ideals and am aware of the tremendous revolution that actually occured withthe founding of America on them. I don't know, I think that an understanding of this and a valuation of it is essential to being an American, but I agree that this is not now, nor probably ever has been, the case. And I can't offer up a convincing argument for why people should think that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "My God said it's bad." is not a valid counterwieght to "Nearly all reputable studies show that having gay parents don't lead to significantly worse mental health for children than having straight parents."
That sort of secular arrogance, coupled with a presumption of the values and purposes behind the very founding of this nation, is exactly the problem. When have social changes been the sole result of scientific proof? Abortion wasn't made legal because 9 out of 10 women were shown to have this or that. Ultimately it was down to people wanting legal sanction for their behavior.
True that some laws are based on facts, i.e. so may car wrecks lead to a traffic light. But we're talking about a condition that has limited scientific basis in either direction. Science has neither proven or disproven the validity of homosexuality as a part of a successful society, much less granting legal benefits. And all sides have their studies.
And you know what? I bet studies would show it does have ill effects and you'd still keep to your opinion. Your links to a single study and a couple of essays? My science trumps your science? The very fact you see the same articles as I do and get a completely different reaction is exactly what I'm talking about! You see things with the same pair of tinted glasses as the rest of us.
The very nature, then, of such bias shows that science alone can never be the sole means to legislate. Spirituality and ideology is inherent in our system. Our country was founded on both scientific principles and spiritual values. Dagonee is right in this regard.
quote: No there isn't. You links don't show that there are reasons to think that gay couples provide substandard parenting.
When did I ever say the negative effects of child-rearing was the reason for the opposition against gay marriage? You put words in my mouth over and over again--and then refute them, so you're basically enjoying a debate invented by yourself.
Since you brought it up, I imagine gay parent are great parents. I know some homosexual men who would make great dads. But it doesn't change the fact that gay marriage isn't marriage.
quote:I support the spirit of the system much more than I do the system, but that's because I feel strongly in the Enlightenment ideals and am aware of the tremendous revolution that actually occured withthe founding of America on them. I don't know, I think that an understanding of this and a valuation of it is essential to being an American, but I agree that this is not now, nor probably ever has been, the case. And I can't offer up a convincing argument for why people should think that.
That's funny, because I feel exactly the same way. Go figure.
quote:I bet studies would show it does have ill effects and you'd still keep to your opinion.
You know, it would help to test that if you could provide one.
The scientific basis for either side is not at all equal. All sides do not in fact have their equally valid studies. I'm getting a little tired of the anti-intellectual relativism front on people wanting to believe things that the evidence contradicts. There are rules for what can be said with confidence. One person saying something can have much greater weight than someone else saying it.
Nor am I as lacking in integrity as you have again accused me of being. I know and follow these rules.
---
Is your position now that even if there are good effects and no significant bad effects to allowing gay marriage, we shouldn't allow it? What gives you the right to say that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The right of every American to stand up for what they believe; I am fueled by conscience and faith and yes, what I see. I stand by the knowing there is more to truth than those narrow visions provided by incomplete and ever-changing facts.
You seem to be the only person in the world who thinks science has made up its mind on the subject. What evidence? One under-represented study and a couple of essays do not outweigh much of anything.
The bottom-line is that your integrity has never been in question. I'm still not seeing where you're getting that. You seem an intelligent enough person able to make decisions based on what you see and feel. But issues of social change are never really solved by science. We're talking about attitudes and beliefs here. And what right do you have to say your science has "greater weight" and your "rules" are universal truth? They are valid, but they are not encompassing. How do you know that such issues like homosexuality aren't contrary to an eternal scheme of things?
I could say tons more, and refute things line by line, but it's late and we're spinning around in circles here...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, You've made distinct statements about gay parents being substandard, such as
quote:Study after study after study has shown that male/female committed marriages are the best means to introduce and raise children. Who says otherwise? Such relationships are also best for the adults involved
and
quote:You will find study after study after study showing man/woman marriage is by far the best means to raise a child and for social stability. Search them out on Google; there's plenty to be found, and if that's not enough I don't know what else to say. Why reward something that is substandard?
In these statements, you've asserted that there are numerous studies that clearly show this. I've provided evidence that shows that there are numerous studies that dispute this idea. You responded with two position type statements that don't offer evidence as supporting your claim and one news report (on FOX news) of a study that acutally supports the claim that having same sex parents don't negatively affect children's mental health. (I realize now that you probably didn't look for or read the article in question, or for that case, the rebuttal of the testimony of the NARTH guy in the Massachuessets case. You should. That's the sort of integrity that's been drilled into me. Here's the actual study.)
Are you backing away from your claim that gay parents are substandard? Or that there are copious studies that demonstrate this? Or would you care to substantiate your claim?
Incidently Geoff, if you look though those policy statements, you'll see the "reparative" therapy of the ex-gay movements officially disapproved of. The official statements are a great deal milder than the condemnation of specific people and incidents who have been strongly censured for their unethical treatments of data and their patients.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, again, you're making an espistemological error. If the reputable science shows something can be said with confidence in the material world, what you believe your God say is true doesn't weigh against it. They have different scopes and even though you may want to translate your value judgements into a scientificly observable context, they don't count there (and, I might add, have a very poor track record).
Likewise, the eternal scheme of things is not the proper arena for science or for government. It's not the government's job to save people's souls. It is, in fact, prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion. In America, as in nearly all non-theocratic states, a person's soul and values are his own (and possibly his church's) matter.
It's every American's right to determine these values for himself. I agree with you there. But it is not your right to force them on someone else. The government works on material matters. Appeals to your interpretation of what your God says is right and wrong are not valid in this context. You don't get to use the government to force people to live according to your version of Christianity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My original point (which has been ignored) is that regardless of your desire that change should come when intellectuals decide it's time, science rarely dictates social change.
If slavery was an issue of science, heck economics, it would still be around today. The stand for what's right has always been one of ideology and yes, often fueled by relgious thought. For as much as the Founding Fathers relied on social theory to engineer our country, they relied equally on their faith to dictate what was considered appropriate policies for their newborn country. If you don't believe that, go back and read Madison and Washington and yes, even Jefferson.
As for your links, the policies of organizations are just as often fueled by politics as science, especially when you have experts offering different views like this. Whose science is right?
(A good commentary on this issue can be found here.)
Besides, look at the The American Psychiatric Association's criteria: "For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria."
When does something that basically feels good and doesn't impair you make it right?
As for the American Medical Association, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's simply a policy to be aware of and treat fairly all homosexuals in regards to medical treatment. I agree with that policy 100%.
My favorite is the The American Academy of Pediatrics. Right alongside stands the American College of Pediatricians who declare:
They also state this in reference to another study and add:
"Same-gender "marriage" is clearly a highly controversial cultural issue and represents a radical social experiment lacking unbiased research supporting its benefits or even its safety for both individuals and society as a whole."
So whose science is right?
Science is a valid part of making decisions, but I choose to rely on the faith there are things I cannot fully see, do not fully understand, but are right or wrong regardless of immediate, short-term results. History has shown that what one body of scientists vote for one century gets changed the next. Who are we to presume universal truth by studies alone? When has that ever been the sole means for drastic social change?
I imagine you'll drum up more articles trying to disprove all this, but what does it matter? Neither of us will change our opinion, especially when secondary issues in this thread are driven into the ground, and core issues are ignored.
––
I must admit, though, a ripping fine debate. Booyah!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I haven't been involved in this previously but I'm going to throw my $0.02 in.
MrSquicky - I'd suggest a little more caution about faithfully believing that "science" has proven your side of the arguement.
* During the early part of the 1900s "science" indicated eugenics was correct, which has since been discarded as valid.
* Plate tectonics became accepted in the 1950s - before that, science claimed other mechanisms were operating.
* Until 1915, the plum pudding model of atoms was taken as scientific fact.
* String theory is still not fully accepted in the field of physics.
I could go on about many other "proven" scientific facts that were later disproven, but I think you get my point.
Science isn't the answer to any question, it is an attempt to better understand everything around us. Our models have been wrong in the past and the future will show us which current models are incorrect. To claim that science has "proven" something and therefore no more research is needed is intellectually dishonest.
One last thing - when you said "When we're talking about observable material effects, science trumps the spiritual" I'm curious how you reconcile that faith can heal people that science has written off (There are numerous documented cases of this.)
Jesse
P.S. When I was younger, I had sexual urges towards other men, but based off of my moral and spiritual background, I consciously chose to be hetrosexual. I completely reject the argument "I had no choice in the matter, I was born this way." You ALWAYS have a choice.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: suggest a little more caution about faithfully believing that "science" has proven your side of the arguement.
Well, that's great, but maybe you should follow your own advice.
quote: you said "When we're talking about observable material effects, science trumps the spiritual" I'm curious how you reconcile that faith can heal people that science has written off (There are numerous documented cases of this.)
Your earlier point was that we still don't have the whole story when it comes down to the science of things. If you beleive that, then how do you know that it was in fact "faith" that was responsible for the healing? Does our present scientific knowledge provide no other explanation? Gee, I guess it MUST be faith, then.
quote:When I was younger, I had sexual urges towards other men, but based off of my moral and spiritual background, I consciously chose to be hetrosexual. I completely reject the argument "I had no choice in the matter, I was born this way." You ALWAYS have a choice.
You have a choice in the way you behave, not in what is sexually attractive to you. Did you choose to have sexual urges towards other men? I'd assume not, based on your "moral and spiritual background" aginast homosexuality. So it looks like the only thing you chose was to not acknowledge or act on any sexual urges you find immoral.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Princess Leah: Well, that's great, but maybe you should follow your own advice.
I fail to see where I did not. Please show me where I did and I will correct myself immediately.
Princess Leah: Your earlier point was that we still don't have the whole story when it comes down to the science of things. If you beleive that, then how do you know that it was in fact "faith" that was responsible for the healing? Does our present scientific knowledge provide no other explanation? Gee, I guess it MUST be faith, then.
I'm sorry I didn't explain myself better. I meant that scientific studies have shown that if someone has faith that their health will improve from whatever malady afflicts them, their chances of getting better is greater than those with no faith they will heal.
Princess Leah: You have a choice in the way you behave, not in what is sexually attractive to you. Did you choose to have sexual urges towards other men? I'd assume not, based on your "moral and spiritual background" aginast homosexuality. So it looks like the only thing you chose was to not acknowledge or act on any sexual urges you find immoral.
Isn't choosing our behaviors the only thing we can do? Some people are sexually attracted to sheep, young children, dead people, etc. Does that mean they should be allowed to have sexual liasons with what they find sexually attractive "because that's what they're attracted to"? Or should they need to resist their sexual urges?
quote:To claim that science has "proven" something and therefore no more research is needed is intellectually dishonest.
err....when did anyone on this thread do that? I'm pretty sure I've never claimed science has proven anything. To say so would mistake the very nature of science.
quote:One last thing - when you said "When we're talking about observable material effects, science trumps the spiritual" I'm curious how you reconcile that faith can heal people that science has written off (There are numerous documented cases of this.)
Could you substantiate this claim? If you're talking about the prayer effect, as far as I know, that hasn't been anywhere near enough study to generalize about it (although I find the idea fascinating). If you;re talking about individual faith, I'm not sure how you're discouting the extremes of psychoneuroimmunology and the placebo effect. Maybe you could explain this to me.
You should understand, I'm a big believer in the positive material effects many types of faith can have on a person's life. However, as with any material effects, I believe these yield themselves to a scientific analysis. Also, considering the wide spectrum of mutually exclusive faiths that appear to introduce benefits, I find it unlikely that these postulated effects are the work of a specific supernatural entity.
quote:When I was younger, I had sexual urges towards other men, but based off of my moral and spiritual background, I consciously chose to be hetrosexual. I completely reject the argument "I had no choice in the matter, I was born this way." You ALWAYS have a choice.
I'm not sure how you can make this claim based on your experience. Could you explain how you feel that generalizing across an entire population from your empirical experience. The reparative therapy movement that sets out to turn gay people to straight has a terrible track record and they deal pretty exclusively with people who are strongly motivated (in many cases, they consent to being tortured) towards not being gay.
---
One of the best uses for science is to combat prejudices. It's very hard to raise a positive to a state of high confidence. It's a great deal easier to show that something is wrong. For example, the idea that gay parents are necessarily substandard to straight parents and the underlying assumptions behind it has not turned out too well in the literature. Or the idea that it's a matter of choice for everyone whether or not to be gay. Not doing too great, either. Likewise the idea that gay people are necessarily mentally ill has very poor support for the accepted definition of mentally ill.
Responsible people don't get to believe whatever they want, no matter what the evidence says. That's what bigots do. You can talk about the not amazing high level of confidence that goes along with some of these things. I wouldn't argue with you there. You can bring up reputable competing studies, which I'm still waiting for peopel to do. But you can't just say deny that objective reality exists of that we can in some way reliably observe it and expect me to take you seriously. You're putting ideology before fact and that's never a responsible position to take.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, Are you serious with this? The description of the 1973 APA conference that led to the changes in the diagnosis of homosexuality as a psychopathology is biased, to say the least. Also, the decision to reclassify it rested on the fact that there were not enough valid evidence showing that it fit an objective standard for being called a mental illness. This was part of a greater shift in the study and treatment of psychopathology away from ideologically based justifications and towards data driven ones. Over 30 years later, there is still not enough valid evidence to consider homosexuality a disorder, despite a heck of a lot of research that set out to show just that.
You should understand that not diagnosing something as a mental disorder does not in anyway constitute a statement that it's right or that the APA is endorsing it. As I've been trying to explain, there is a fundamental difference between the world of facts and thye world of values. Mental disorders are not a question of values; that's the problem that the homosexuality reclassification and the shift to the DSM III got us away from. They're a question of whether something can reliably be shown to fit a certain set of criteria.
The APA's position on God is "Not in our purview", which is the way that it should be.
---
And the American College of Pediatricians? Even a cursory look at their web page shows them to be an advocacy group formed in 2002 specifically because the AAP supported same sex parent adoption. They're not anywhere near on equal standing with the AAP. Their mission statement is to push the idea that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise children. They don't even pretend to be objective.
Look, people can say whatever they want and they can call themselves whateer they want. What you need to actually make a case is data that supports what they're saying.
---
I'll ask again. You've stated that there were study upon study showing how heterosexual parents were superior to homosexual ones but have yet to show even one. Are you withdrawing your assertions or would you like to show me a reputable study that shows this?
---
If you think science is not an important of social change, you're wrong. It gives us a better understanding of the way things actually are and allows us to counter people's prejudices (like gay parents are bad for kids or gay people like to molest children).
Consider the civil rights movement. Clark's doll study was one of the strongest pieces of evidence used in Brown v. The Board of Education. One of the books most highly praised by Martin Luther King Jr. and Maclom X was the psychologist Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice. Objective testing allowed people to conclusively demonstrate discrimination and the negative effects of certan policies on people.
The material case against gay people is formed, as far as I can see, on ill informed prejudces. Were people to actually view gay people as human beings similar to themselves, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You seem to be arguing that people are going to keep their prejudices no matter how strong the case is against them. I think this is true for some people, but I've got more hope and more faith in people than that. If we can consistently expose and debunk these prejudices, I believe that many people will ocme to realize that there are no reasons to fear gay people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But since you refuse any and all opposing studies that have been offered, and there have been plenty, you have put ideology before fact.
Again, you don't address the main contention. What facts should we consider, especially when groups of professionals are more motivated by politics than objective science? And whose science should we believe, when studies differ?
I wish we did live in this utopia where the information we learn is absolute, we come about it objectively, and we make objective decisions that benefit everyone. But this isn't a utopia. We more often make presumptions based on our beliefs, regardless of what they are, then drum up evidence to support it.
As I've said before, science has its place, but it is never absolute. And you ask people why they served the civil rights movement, and it sure isn't because of some study. They did it because they felt it was wrong.
posted
You haven't offered reputable studies. Or maybe you did and I missed them. If you could point the ones you think are valid, perhaps we could discuss them. From what I've seen, you've scattershot a web search of things that are related to what you're saying at me. So far, the only peer reviewed study I've seen you you present (and that by way of a news report) supported the opposite of your point.
There are objective criteria that can be used to determine what science is valid. This decision becomes less clear when we're talking about secondary sources, but I feel confident in saying that advocacy organizations like the ACP, that were formed specifically to promote their issues, have much less credibility than an organization like the AAP.
These organizations haven't let politics guide their decision making just because you don't agree with their decisions. If you look at the APA statement, for example, you'll see that the footnotes (referring to reputable studies in reputable journals as opposed to The Christian Journal of Why Gays are Bad) make up nearly as much as the primary text. Their claims are easily up for refutation, not by asserting that they are without integrity, but by showing the flaws in their sources or the flaws in how they treat their sources.
You can determine what information is good and which is not by knowing what you're talking about. That's part of my training. Another part is the opposite of this:
quote:We more often make presumptions based on our beliefs, regardless of what they are, then drum up evidence to support it.
I'm aware that all humans are biased. However, I have a lot more integrity than this gives me credit for.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole integrity thing is important to you, isn't it?
It wouldn't matter what studies I directed your attention, (like the previously listed peer reviewed study here) because you already have "training" and "know what (you're) talking about," right? For a criteria that must be iron-clad, right? I could throw a thousand peer-reviewed studies your way and it would never be enough.
There was a day when most everyone believed slavery was the natural order of things. There was a day when people thought smoking and drug use was harmless. We can use "facts" to say just about everything––did you know that 100% of people who died of cancer last year ALL used toilet paper? Recall the Charmin!
It's all about using those facts to promote one's own platform. And to presume those who ascribe to your beliefs tend to be "above" such notions...well, there's not much I can do for you there.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a study. That's an opinion piece. THere isn't a scrap of primary evidence in it. I'm not sure what type of peer-reivew process The Journal of Psychohistory uses or who is involved in it, but they don't appear hold themselves out as a scientific research journal. You can check out the index of their articles here.
Of course integrity is a big deal to me. It's the central aspect that any scientist (especially one that works in the more nebuluous sciences) needs. I don't let my preconceived notions blind me to what the data says. I've had to revise countless theories throughout the years because the data didn't fit. The organizations I've referenced here (in oppostion to the groups you seem to prefer, like NARTH or the ACP) are also strongly concerned about their integrity and police themselves heavily. Imputing a lack of integrity because you don't like what we say is not a responsible thing to do.
I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a reputable source or survey of information. When I looked at this issue, I've specifically looked for disconfirming evidence. That's one of the first steps in a responsible investigation. I found it lacking. This is not a case where there are competing experts of equal weight and number on each side. The people on your side generally make their bias very clear and have little valid scientific support for their assertions. They've routinely been caught in ethical lapses.
It's possible I missed a large chunk of valid evidence against my position (which, I've freely admitted is nowhere near ironclad), but I'm satisfied with the literature review I did. And I'm willing to entertain any reliable evidence you can present. But you haven't presented any, that I've seen, except for the study that confirms my view.
Nor have you presented me with an argument for why gay marriage would be a bad thing for society that doesn't rely on "I don't like it." or "God said so." Or how allowing gay marriage would actually threaten people's lifestyle.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of scientist are you? (Just curious.)
Spiritual confirmation can't be quantified in a traditional sense...so it's dismissed. If I relied only on what I can quantify, I suppose I would believe any sort of notions. And I understand better than you might think regarding what constitutes something being "reputable." But "reputable" scientists are debunked regularly. I like to think beyond what I see in my hands.
This inability, or unwillingness to see beyond one's nose makes no sense to me. It seems so limiting. Since I do not believe the issue has been adequately researched and proven either way, I think relying only on what has been shown is a poor and premature way to make up one's mind on such a big issue. Even if all the scientists in the world said one thing, they all once believed the Earth was flat, didn't they? Truth is found in more places than in the scientists's notebook.
That's my take. But hey, I'm only a teacher, not a scientist, so what do I know, right?
BTW, you sure love to put words in my mouth. I referenced NARTH merely to show competing studies exist, but I neither "prefer" them or know anything more about their practices. I suppose that means I have no integrity? Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's be clear. You've made a definite claim that gay parents are substandard to straight ones and that there are tons of studies to back this up. Have you changed your mind on that?
Because it sounds like you have. You now seem to be saying that there hasn't been adequate research. I wonder how you've made this determination. Have you studied the available research? How extensive have your studies been?
quote:Spiritual confirmation can't be quantified in a traditional sense...so it's dismissed. If I relied only on what I can quantify, I suppose I would believe any sort of notions.
Spiritual confirmation is unreliable, in the epistemological definition of the word. It changes, from time to time and from person to person. It cannot be replicated and very often contradicts itself. It is also non-transferrable. For all these reasons, it falls outside the scope of scientific evidence.
You'd be wrong about relying on what you can quantify, either as being a necessary aspect of science or as meaning that there wouldn't be objective truth. Relying on what can be shown and replicated is how we move beyond the "what I want to believe" world. And, if you want to talk about the historically bad actions and incorrect beliefs of a group, I don't think relying on religion as a superior position is going to work out for you.
What scientists say (and pretending that the state of things in the modern era is similar to any of the examples mentioned is silly) is not the issue. What the data says is. If the studies are methodologically sound, they produce valid data. This data is subject to interpretation and this interpretation is open to analysis as to how responsible it is. It's possible that the data or the interpretation is unsound or how another interpretation fits better, but saying "Well, it oculd be wrong. People have been wrong before." while much easier, is not a responsible criticism.
I don't rest my belief in the soundness of these ideas on what people or groups say. I rest them on what the data says. It is confirming evidence that the major reputable groups that study these things agree with my interpretation, but I don't believe just because they say so.
Honestly, estaveres, I don't think you understand what having integrity means in the way that I'm using it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
