Study shows Prop 8 exit polls wrong about level of support amongst Blacks.

[Joe Republic]

Here are two links to two excellent articles

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

At the risk of invoking the ad hominem fallacy, even the casual observer is going to have to take articles published by the Catholic Education Resource Center and the Family Research Council with more than just a pinch of salt.  At least the independent sources I provided (which again, were just the first three I stumbled on) do not have an overt agenda like those two conservative religious institutions.

In any case, Alcon covered the substantive critiques of your articles better than I could. 

Furthermore, despite the fact that you've said you'd prefer to evade this topic, I would really appreciate an answer to the question in my previous post.  It actually feels like we're making progress.

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that points out flaws in positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that debunks positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

OK, I'll bite. A sample can't prove that there is no difference. So what?

[Alcon]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that points out flaws in positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

You didn't link me to a scientific study.  You linked me to a 193-page book.  The fact that you called this book a "scientific study" (it is not) makes me ask the obvious question.  Have you actually read it? 

The central complaint for this book, as far as I can tell, is that the sampling of the studies about homosexual parenting are non-random.  However, I searched the entire book and found no reference to the most intensive study conducted on the matter (it may have been conducted after the book was started ca. 2000), which included an effectively random sample of 12,000.  The book simultaneously attacks studies for measuring in-depth variables insufficiently, and also for having small samples.  It's kind of a paradoxical attack.

I care a lot about this subject, morally.  But if you're expecting me to write a full rebuttal of a 150-page book not even published by a neutral group (it's from an anti-gay marriage think tank), that is not reasonable.  If you've read the book, raise the arguments you found most compelling individually.  Tell me what an acceptably-designed study (to you) would be, and we can hash out an agreement and try to see if one has been conducted that way.  If you haven't read the book, or can't independently identify the arguments therein that shaped your belief, what is your intent here?

In the meantime, you still haven't even answered my question about your statement that my "reductio" was "absurdum."  This is now the tenth time you have ignored this question.  I get the feeling that you're hoping I'll give up if you throw the kitchen sink at me until I relent, or don't realize that your debate etiquette is becoming inordinately impolite.

[Lincoln Republican]

I referred to this article as a scientific paper, check my post, not a scientific study.  Although, it is, in fact, called a study in the foreword.  Therefore, since the reference in the foreword, referring to the article, calls the article a study, one can only accept the fact, therefore,  that it is indeed a study, and by extension a scientific study, as the authors employed scientific methods of research and analyses.

I do not expect anyone to write a rebuttal of this article.  I put it out there because it is an in depth analysis of the flaws in published studies on same sex parenting.  It shows me that studies concluding that it makes no difference whether children are raised by two mothers, or by two fathers, or by a father and a mother, should not and cannot be taken at face value.  That is my intent.   

As far as the authorship goes, one should not dismiss out of hand two individuals with their doctorates, who are highly qualified individuals in their fields of study, and who are professionals in the field of quantitative analysis.     

Alcon, I appreciate the fact that you care a lot about this subject.  It is clear to me that you are the most knowledgeable and informed individual I have ever discussed this subject with.

But surely you can appreciate the fact that I care about this subject as well, only from a different perspective than you.

Alcon, I do not wish to be impolite, however, I know that you likely put a great deal of thought into the reductio ad absurdum issue, and I have not been replying about this matter because I did not want to hurt your feelings, but the truth of the matter is I do not believe that your reductio ad absurdum argument applies in my case, as my arguments are rational and logical.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Fair enough point on the matter of the study.  I usually think of a "study" as being shorter and measuring a few variables, not being a advocacy thesis/review like this.  But you're right, that's what it calls itself.  My error.

Either way...did you read it?  If you have, I want to analyze it in detail, because it certainly has substance behind it.  I'm not dismissing the authors out of hand.  It's from an advocacy organization, which means it's even harder to detect insidious bias, and such bias is even more likely.  But it's a scholarly work and worth considering.  However, if the contents have no pull on your opinion on this issue, I'd be wasting my time since -- to be honest -- my primary goal is to change minds.  (When I'm researching myself, a think tank review like this is usually a secondary priority at best.)

I do really like the idea of you presenting what you see as a model for a meaningful study of the effect of gay marriage on society.  If you tell me the variables you're interested in, the sort of sample you want, etc., I can see how close research has come to it, and what conclusions that research came to.  If you're not comfortable with using research to make this decision, I guess we can drop the issue for now.

Now:  You're not going to hurt my feelings.  Even when you outright declared that I was part of a movement to destroy an institution I'm trying to apply my idea of social justice to, you didn't hurt my feelings.  The only thing that scares or offends me is the idea that I would be insufficiently vigilant, biased or ignorant, and resultingly arrive at a morally unjust or irrational belief.  So, if being challenge bothered me, it would be my responsibility to suck it up and accept the challenges to my logic.  Now, please, go ahead -- challenge me.

[Lincoln Republican]

Joe, when I talk about the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children, I am talking about children raised within the confines of a same sex relationship, not children generally.

But as I've already said, the raising of children within any kind of relationship is a separate issue from whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

I'll ask a slightly different question here to clarify my point:  Let's say that two gay people wish to marry, but have no intention of raising children (by however means).  How does this affect society?

With all due respect, not that I am evading the issue, however, in my reply, I did suggest that you consult some of the scientific studies in this matter, and also stated that I did not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

There are some very interesting articles in this matter that you can Google or Bing.

I typed "effect of gay parents on children" into Google Scholar, and here are extracts from the first three studies it found:

• "To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
  
  
• "The author's study found that adult-aged daughters of lesbian mothers did not significantly differ from adult daughters of heterosexual mothers on gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and social adjustment."
  
  
• "The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."
  

Joe, the study I referred you and Alcon to by Dr. Lerner and Dr. Nagai points out in very clear terms the flaws in the research methods employed by numerous researchers in their authorship of articles that show no difference between children raised by two mothers or by two fathers or by a father and a mother, and shows that these studies are in many cases unreliable and not fully factual.

So the studies you have quoted I would not put a great deal of dependability in, until you have verified their research methods and the extent of their studies.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

Why did you respond to Joe's post, made before you linked to that paper, and ignore my new one?  It brings up (very valid) questions about the paper's analysis and objectivity. It also asks a question that could move the debate somewhere productive...

About the paper:  You haven't answered whether you've read the work enough to understand the methodology.  If not, you're essentially just trusting the last accredited argument you hear on  the matter, which is a little weaksauce to me if you really want to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.  There are also some rebuttals posed to this work by accredited people.  If you don't understand the methodology in this work enough to dismiss the rebuttals, why are you accepting it as the final argument?

About the productivity:  I really would like to hear what form of study you would accept as valid, so I can see if there are any studies that line up with it.  Then this conversation could, like, progress, and maybe we could get an agreement on something empirical instead of arguing what we assume to be true.  I'm sure you'll agree that that's less important than what is actually true.

[Franzl]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that points out flaws in positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

What do positive or negative "impacts" have to do with whether or not rights should be granted?

I don't accept that any negative impact would be the result....but even if you do, why don't you support banning numerous other things that have a "negative impact" on society?

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, Joe, or anyone else

If you have lots of time, you may be interested in the following scientific paper that points out flaws in positive studies on the impact of same sex parenting.       

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

What do positive or negative "impacts" have to do with whether or not rights should be granted?

I don't accept that any negative impact would be the result....but even if you do, why don't you support banning numerous other things that have a "negative impact" on society?

Franzl

The study I made refrence to was in response to other posts stating there was no negative impact on children raised in same sex relationships, and in reply to a question from Joe Republic.  That was the purpose of this particular study, showing that, potentially, there could well be flaws in studies that showed no negative impact.

Marriage is quite different from other things, as you call them.  Marriage is a fundamental foundation of society.  Of course, there are many, many things in society that have a negative impact, however, it would be impossible to out and out ban them, things such as smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, the list goes on and on.  In fact, I do support banning these things, for the good of society, and in particular, for the good of children in society, but a ban could not, at this time, be enforced in all practicality.

Perhaps you could reply to my question to you on page 5, reply 66.     

[Lincoln Republican]

Joe, when I talk about the negative impact that same sex marriage will have on children, I am talking about children raised within the confines of a same sex relationship, not children generally.

But as I've already said, the raising of children within any kind of relationship is a separate issue from whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

I'll ask a slightly different question here to clarify my point:  Let's say that two gay people wish to marry, but have no intention of raising children (by however means).  How does this affect society?

With all due respect, not that I am evading the issue, however, in my reply, I did suggest that you consult some of the scientific studies in this matter, and also stated that I did not wish to become involved in another lengthy discussion about the societal impact of gay marriage.

There are some very interesting articles in this matter that you can Google or Bing.

I typed "effect of gay parents on children" into Google Scholar, and here are extracts from the first three studies it found:

• "To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
  
  
• "The author's study found that adult-aged daughters of lesbian mothers did not significantly differ from adult daughters of heterosexual mothers on gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and social adjustment."
  
  
• "The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."
  

Joe, the question you have asked (bolded) is an interesting one, and one that should be addressed.

Like I said in reply in a previous question from you, gay marriage does not affect me in my daily life.  This would, of course, apply to whether or not the couple were raising any children.

However, my answer brings us full circle.  In my view, Joe, marriage, defined as the union of one man one woman, is a fundamental element and a key cornerstone of society, and, also in my view, same sex marriage is one more erosion of that society.  The more that fundamental elements and key cornerstones of society are eroded, the weaker those societies become, over time. 

The fall of the mighty Roman Empire was caused, in part, by external invasions, yes, but, these were preceded by moral decay from within, thus weakening the ability of Rome to defend itself from its' conquerors.

[Alcon]

Winfield,

You've responded to the same post by Joe twice now, even though that was made before your post on Lerner's work, which I addressed in my post.

There is a constant dichotomy between personal freedom and societal good.  You obviously fall on its more restrictive end; you think that we should ban any substance where, in the vast majority of cases, the impact on the user is negative.  It makes me wonder how often you choose to eat hamburgers or have desserts, but that is a separate matter.  I understand your argument.  Now, I want to prove, within the structure of that argument, if it is true, that gay marriage is a moral positive -- before I even bother to challenge the philosophical grounds for your litmus test.

But to do that, I need a response to my post.  I think we're good on Joe's. 

[Joe Republic]

Joe, the question you have asked (bolded) is an interesting one, and one that should be addressed.

Like I said in reply in a previous question from you, gay marriage does not affect me in my daily life.  This would, of course, apply to whether or not the couple were raising any children.

However, my answer brings us full circle.  In my view, Joe, marriage, defined as the union of one man one woman, is a fundamental element and a key cornerstone of society, and, also in my view, same sex marriage is one more erosion of that society.  The more that fundamental elements and key cornerstones of society are eroded, the weaker those societies become, over time. 

The fall of the mighty Roman Empire was caused, in part, by external invasions, yes, but, these were preceded by moral decay from within, thus weakening the ability of Rome to defend itself from its' conquerors.

Thank you for answering my question.

I agree that society is full of 'fundamental elements' and 'key cornerstones', and I also agree that marriage (or at least the stable, long-term relationship) is one of them.  But where we differ is on why the gender/sexuality of the two people in such a couple matters.

It seems that when the subject of raising children is removed from the equation entirely, your opposition to gay marriage boils down to the 'appeal to tradition' logical fallacy.  That is to say that you have assumed that the status quo was correct from the start, which may not necessarily be the case, and furthermore that previous justifications are still valid in the modern age.  Society has continuously adapted over the centuries to eventually become more open-minded, and has endured.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield,

You've responded to the same post by Joe twice now, even though that was made before your post on Lerner's work, which I addressed in my post.

There is a constant dichotomy between personal freedom and societal good.  You obviously fall on its more restrictive end; you think that we should ban any substance where, in the vast majority of cases, the impact on the user is negative.  It makes me wonder how often you choose to eat hamburgers or have desserts, but that is a separate matter.  I understand your argument.  Now, I want to prove, within the structure of that argument, if it is true, that gay marriage is a moral positive -- before I even bother to challenge the philosophical grounds for your litmus test.

But to do that, I need a response to my post.  I think we're good on Joe's. 

Alcon, while it is true that I did respond to Joe's same post on two separate occasions, the first time, I did not address his question about the effect on society of gay marriage wherein the couple is not raising any children.  In the second reply, I addressed that question.

Therefore, there was a reason for two separate replies.

In an ideal society, we would be free from the debilitating and insidious chains of smoking, drinking, illicit drugs, prostitution, pornography, sexual promiscuity, etc., but as I have stated previously, in all practicality, at this time, a ban on these harmful substances and practices cannot be put into effect.  I fully realize this fact.

But I digress.

I have read the Lerner Nagai study, and I believe it raises some very valid issues and concerns with the methodologies, testing standards, sampling, etc. regarding studies concluding there is no difference in the impact on children raised in same sex relationships and those raised by a father and a mother.

Now, this study is so extensive, that I will not become involved in a discussion breaking down the negatives and the positives and how other studies have come forward that purport to refute some of the findings of the study.  Suffice it to say that the study is well researched and presented forthrightly.  This is not to say that the study is the be all end all, however, it is impressive in its' validity as far as I am concerned.