quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not touching that one
You don't have to. That's how it works.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it is shown to have no negative impact while making homosexuals happier, that would imply that it should be legal.
Yes, but still no study can tell us what is negative and what isn't - thus you can't 'show' a negative impact. You can show homosexual marriages cause X to happen, and then use religious and/or ethical theories to claim X is bad or good, but that entails faith in some theory unproven by any study. Ultimately, you're going to have to resort to calling upon religion or one of its non-religious equivalents.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we measure success in raising a child, then?
Happiness? Independence?
Ability to form and maintain relationships and achieve their own dreams, whatever those may be? <-- my theory
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I promise you I wouldn't dismiss it. Contest it, yes, but not dismiss. However, I understand the choice.
On a more general note, notice how the argument I gave can be beautiful, consistent, and yet wrong (I will not pretend the evidence is uncontestable, though it is abundant; however, that the evidence could be correct is evident, and thus the argument could be wrong).
I have seen this a lot in non-religious arguments against homosexuality; they take premises that simply aren't born out by reality, as obvious as they seem.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina -- check out those studies, several specifically assessed exactly what you just said you found to be valuable and found it to occured in children with hom parents just as much as with het parents.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not everyone is. However, the studies pointed to cover a wide assortment of measures of well-adjusted, including such useful criteria as happiness and having typical interactions with agemates.
posted
I am NOT goading, except in the most general and innocent sense.
I am hoping to have a discussion with someone who has a developed opinion on the subject that is dissimilar to my own; however, I have found that in every case where I find someone I think to be such a person on the issue of homosexuality they have chosen to never share the criteria they are evaluating on and evidence they use to support that criteria beyond the religious in a serious discussion. This vexes me somewhat, yes, and means that if I am ever to have a frank discussion I must utilize some gentle prodding.
However, I believe my prodding is separated from goading on several levels: it has no intent to harm, I do not assume intellectual fallacy on the other's part, I try to avoid pressing very hard, I don't make ad hominem attacks, and I only continue the discussion as far as the other person does; if katharina makes no further replies you won't see any further comments from me in this thread directed at her (unless some new thought comes to me on what she has said; I mean there will be no repetition for provocation's sake).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the intent is stated that someone does not want to open themself to attack and degredation on the board, it's would be in everyone's best interests to respect that. If you wish to pursue the discussion privately, try email. If you still meet with resistence there, give it up. It's called common courtesy.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it's hard for me to see because I don't have a particular religion. I don't, for example, believe in casual sex, but I do believe people should only do it if they love and care about a person.
That position is one along a broad continuum of beliefs that sex is not appropriate under all circumstances between consenting adults – it’s different in degree, not kind from the Catholic position that “people should only do it is they love and care about a person and have made a sacred covenant of marriage with that person.” I’m assuming that you don’t think people who engaged in casual sex should be punished by the law. Neither do I.
quote:I don't believe it's just for reproduction, otherwise humans would go into heat like animals and be pregnant almost all the time…
I understand that you have very different beliefs than I do about sexuality. That’s fine. All I’m asking is that you acknowledge that people who hold similar beliefs to mine can be motivated by love, not bigotry.
posted
I've always had a problem with private discussion on public topics when a public venue is available, largely because the principles are rarely persuaded but the bystanders often are. I do understand the point, however I don't think I have been carrying this conversation on beyond kat's wishes. What I've said has been almost entirely in direct response to her, including going through an exercise on possible arguments against homosexuality at her urging. The only non direct response I made was a summary of what I saw as the relevance of the example I put forward at her urging after her withdrawal from the conversation, and that was a comment on my comments, not on hers.
She's kept up the conversation until now, and if she doesn't continue responding I certainly won't. However, given that I do want to continue the conversation I consider it perfectly reasonable to respond to points she brings up after she says she wants to stop the conversation; this is not disrespectful.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you, the reader, believes that homosexual parenting is worse than heterosexual parenting, then I have found research to suggest that that assumption is incorrect. I simply wish you, the reader who thinks that homosexual parenting is worse, to back up that assumption just as I have backed up my assumption.
A study looked at 23 prior studies which used various criteria, including: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning
"Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000" Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2002. 43, 335-351
quote:Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
I'm posting the pdf here 'cause it's hard to get to otherwise.
Because it has been shown that gay parents raise children similarly as straight parents under those 7 criteria, gay parents should be allowed to adopt. (In the article it comments that this is definitely true for lesbian parents. Only 3 gay father studies have been done, but so far those studies show the same to be true for gay fathers).
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I love you, man, but you sound like a telemarketer who won't stop talking to a consumer who is polite enough not to hang up on you. I understand your desire, but maybe you could shift your request to finding someone else with whom you can discuss the issue -- someone who fits the mindset/worldview/whatever you're hoping to see.
quote:When the intent is stated that someone does not want to open themself to attack and degredation on the board, it's would be in everyone's best interests to respect that.
Everyone is open to attack and degredation just by being on this forum, if someone chooses to attack or degrade them. Giving an opinion does not alter that.
Truthfully, I think it is disrespectful to leave a discussion on the assumption that the other person will dismiss whatever you say out of hand - especially once you have told him you think he is wrong. Within your rights as a participant, of course, but a bit disrepectful nonetheless, based on the reason.
posted
>> Truthfully, I think it is disrespectful to leave a discussion on the assumption that the other person will dismiss whatever you say out of hand - especially once you have told him you think he is wrong. <<
I think kat's basing her decision in part on what I said on Page 4, which is fair enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know..ve trouble seeing it as love due to just how miserable trying to change ones sexuality can make a person. I read a book written by 2 ex gays talking about advising the people to remain celibate and how hard it would be and how it would depress them. I just can't justify people forcing themselves to go through something like that... that horrible personal hell...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun: I know I said I wouldn't participate, but a particular line in your study begs for comment:
Last paragraph, last sentence in Conclusion:
quote:For men, there are too few studies to provide substantive evidence, although the same probably holds for them.
Hate to cry bias, but this study obviously (to me) started out biased, found what it was looking for, and ended with its predicted, foregone conclusion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu- Read the study-- maybe you'll come to different conclusions than I did.
However, the section titled 'Comments on Research Questions' is informative, and goes to support my point of view, in my opinion.
My opinion being that this study (which really isn't a study, but an analysis of other studies which were chosen by the authors) is clearly biased.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you argue that in the absence of sufficiently unbiased data, homosexual marriage should be disallowed because of uncertain consequences? That's certainly sensible enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me they're using that section to rather forthrightly discuss the situation surrounding the studies involved. For instance, your quote illustrates them directly admitting that there is insufficient evidence for the same claims as applied to homosexual men (since most studies are of homosexual women, there being more of them with kids), and then speculating that it would be similarly with men.
Furthermore, comments sections in published reports are exactly that: comments. They're a place for researchers to discuss issues which are more vague than the level of the study, personal opinions, and suggestions. And this study is very careful about establishing its weaknesses -- notice above that where they admit many of the studies had structural weaknesses.
Also, they did not pick and choose in an unreasonable way at all; take a look at the selection criteria:
quote:To be included in the review, the material had to be published in an available journal or book and based on empirical data collected from nonclinical samples of children raised by one or two lesbian or gay parents, with or without proxy information from parents and teachers, with or without control groups, with or without children born in a setting of heterosexual marriage or cohabitation (with later change in parental lifestyles), and recruited through self-identified lesbian or gay parents. Excluded from the review were reports with limited circulation, such as master and doctoral theses and conference proceedings.
This wasn't an arbitrary selection of studies, all 23 of the studies that met those rather open criteria were included, yet
quote:none of the reviewed studies reported substantial differences in outcome among groups of children.
They didn't pick and choose obscurely at all, they're very open about their methodology, they admit the weaknesses in the studies directly.
Their procedure seems pretty normal and sound to me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hazard to guess that gays make BETTER parents, as a whole, than do heterosexual parents.
Why?
Because gays don't have "accidental" children. They have to really want a child, and be willing to go through a heck of a lot of hoops to get one.
That, in my opinion, is a pretty good indication that they'd be be a heck of a lot better at raising kids than a lot of the hetero couples or single parents who didn't really think the whole child-rearing thing through before they started knocking boots.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having witnessed the participation of both Scott and kat in multiple homosexuality threads over the past four years, I'm willing to bet that they don't agree with my views on this matter.
Which is all I said in that post.
(Edit: Actually, I might be mistaken about Scott. Homosexuality threads on Hatrack all blur together after a while.)
posted
Well, no. You've only got 18 posts, most of which aren't on this topic. Compared to Scott and Kat who've got a huge number of posts on the subject, most of which are along the lines of "I think ...". I don't think it's unreasonable at all for him to take a stab at what they're thinking, considering they've told everyone their thoughts on it countless times already.
Edit: Beaten by the man, the myth, the legend himself.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I see a screen name I don't recognize, I always wonder whether it's really a new person, or just another incarnation of Jon Boy or Pat.
Multiple screen names are really annoying. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Twinky, that's not me or Pat. Pat's been sticking to Pat and Trogdor, and I've been sticking to a few that are (I hope) recognizably me.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I don't like these discussions.
A very clear bias is shown by the authors of the study.
Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument.
Apparently, the same requirements are not required of proponents of homosexual marriage.
posted
No, Scott, that isn't what was said. There's a difference between colouring and invalidating. All that was said is that it's important to know where a person is coming from. How that got turned into this monstrous, taken-to-heart, insulting thing is beyond me.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They cite, with full journal references, 23 studies with statistics. That's a fair amount of statistics. I'm still waiting for the first statistics that support your position.
And I do think statistics matter from you, however that doesn't much matter as you haven't supplied any.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument. << (Scott)
Scott, that's not what I said. I said that their bias influences their views. In fact, I said that the biases of both opponents and proponents of homosexual marriage affect their views. I also said that it affects the judgment of anyone listening to the argument, subconsciously or otherwise, and that while these things can be mitigated they can't be fully compensated for.
In short, I said that bias is always going to be a factor for everyone who participates in this debate. I think it's important to be aware of that.
Additionally, I said that I think homosexuality and homosexual marriage need to be considered in tandem, though I did not suggest that a person can't disapprove of one while supporting the other.
>> My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish. << (Polly)
How is it trolling if I do in fact know? Or even if I have a fair idea? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me, particularly if you take the post you quoted in context.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinsey's studies were highly restricted by the attitudes and postal regulations of the time. Also, though he occasionally generated statistics, his primary interest was in uncovering new aspects of sexuality, which is likely why he applied methodologies generally known to be statistically flawed -- because he wasn't very interested in the statistics. None of his work asserts that such studies were statistically authoritative, but instead presents the studies as collections of individual accounts.
Edit: this is just a side remark; Kinsey's research was fascinating but is often misconstrued. It was cited for a long time, however, because there simply weren't any other sources of statistics on those subjects. This is not surprising, as he established the modern field of sexual research.
Are you seriously arguing that the researchers in the study are not biased?
Twink-- I agree with you. I don't think a study CAN be done (by either POV) without the taint of bias.
However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias.
Fugu- Kinsey and his researchers were monsters. I don't know a better way to put it.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias. <<
I mostly missed that thread, but I would certainly be annoyed if I saw the opposite trend in a debate I was invested in. That's fair enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, is your "undiagnosed OCD" a disability which we all have to put up with? If you are in a thread, are we not allowed to comment on what you say? Are you just allowed to announce that you know what you know and nothing we say will change your mind, but not be allowed to respond to it?
quote: One thing I learned from the pre-marital sex thread was that if I came up with a good argument, I'd just hear "You only believe that because you believe Y, and you believe Y because of X, and all people who believe X are wrong." And every jump, every assumption was wrong.
It was so ignorant and so close-minded on every level that I'm not going to waste my breath.
So, because whoever was in that thread was ignorant, you are publicly stating in this thread that you won't participate? Are we the ones being ignorant and closed minded? Or was it someone else and you are taking it out on us? And isn't it rather silly to state that you aren't participating and then still participate? Or is that the OCD disability that we need to ignore? It seems more like tourettes. You know, you just have to shout out obscenities in a quiet library type of thing. You came into this thread and made the assumption that either the participants or the arguments would be "ignorant and closed minded." It's like a black man walking in the KKK headquarters and telling them they are ignorant rednecks. So, how it got to be fugu who shouldn't be harassing you is beyond all comprehension to me.
Polly,
quote: My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish.
I didn't notice you chiding Katharina when she stated that everyone else would merely dismiss whatever she thought. Isn't that the same thing? Seems to me, she said we weren't worth talking to because she knew what we thought.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Not in every case, of course. But I do think that, in general, parents who sit down and decide that now is a good time to raise a kid, and are willing to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get one, are generally better prepared than a lot of parents for whom childbirth was an unexpected consequence of sex.
In other words, even if a lot of "accidental" children are well-raised by responsible adult, a lot aren't. With gay couples, accidental childbirth is not even a possibility. Gay couples with children made the conscious decision that they wanted children. AND had to undergo screening to ensure that they met the basic standards for adopting a child! That's a lot more than you can say for a lot of kids born to heterosexual couples.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm arguing that they're both forthright about their bias and there is no reason to suggest they let their bias influence those conclusions which they do not explicitly mark as biased (notice that they are quite scrupulous about saying things like "we believe" and "we don't think" when its a not fully supported conclusion).
Show me a study (in anything, but particularly social science) where the researchers were unbiased and I'll show you a blank sheet of paper.
Aren't you the one saying any statistics you produce should be considered despite your bias? Show these researchers the same respect you ask for. You aren't arguing about the facts of the study at all -- for instance, where I showed that they had very broad criteria for inclusion and included all studies meeting those criteria.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any evidence to support such a claim, Ayelar? Even Suneun's article doesn't claim that children of gay parents are better off than children of heterosexual parents.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Just to be clear, you're making no statement about inherent parental ability, right?
posted
They specifically cover all 23 studies that met the above mentioned criteria:
quote:The typical outcomes in the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review were emotional adjustment (12 studies), sexual preference (nine studies), stigmatization (nine studies), gender role behavior (eight studies), behavioral adjustment (seven studies), gender identity (six studies), and cognitive functioning (three studies).
All 23 studies are on the chart they include.
They include their very specific methodology (just under the inclusion criteria) for discovering the studies to be included -- if you have access to a research library with appropriate subscriptions, such as at a University, feel free to replicate their searches.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the table, I have to say I was kind of hoping that more of the studies would be blind at at least one stage. About half of them were blind on the researcher's end in some way.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yes, the component studies are far from perfect, as this study repeats numerous times (if they were letting their bias get to them, one might expect them to, perhaps, ignore such problems instead of stating them straight up). This limitation is hardly their fault as by their criteria blind studies are perfectly acceptable -- its just there weren't any. As for it resulting in potentially bad results, yes, that's possible. However, they note that while all the studies had problems, some minor and others bigger, the problems and methodologies varied greatly and still resulted in the same basic results.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Yes, Dagonee, that's what I was trying to say. Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
to self*
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
