SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[Junior]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

 

 

Do you have anything to back that statement up with? Or is it based purely on supposition?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/zach-wahls-iowa-student-marriage-equality_n_1123020.html

[Landlord]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

 

 

Do you have anything to back that statement up with? Or is it based purely on supposition?

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1123020.html

 

 

I mean...I don't really have the time to devote to backing it up as much as I would like to, but my answer is that yes, I have things to back it up with, but probably not to the point that would satisfy you. Reason being because it's mostly tiered arguments of reason versus quantifiable data points or statistics, although I know those exist as well, and also because my faith and belief in God and His design for Marriage play a big foundational role in my position.

 

I'm not saying gay couples can't successfully raise children; they totally can. But biology shows (shows is the wrong word, because it's not really an option to view or ignore) us from the start the way things are supposed to work as far as procreation goes.

[Junior]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

 

 

Do you have anything to back that statement up with? Or is it based purely on supposition?

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1123020.html

 

 

I mean...I don't really have the time to devote to backing it up as much as I would like to, but my answer is that yes, I have things to back it up with, but probably not to the point that would satisfy you. Reason being because it's mostly tiered arguments of reason versus quantifiable data points or statistics, although I know those exist as well, and also because my faith and belief in God and His design for Marriage play a big foundational role in my position.

 

I'm not saying gay couples can't successfully raise children; they totally can. But biology shows (shows is the wrong word, because it's not really an option to view or ignore) us from the start the way things are supposed to work as far as procreation goes.

 

I'm not asking for much, just a peer reviewed study that suggests that kids raised by gay parents are less adjusted than those raised by straight parents.

 

Biology shows that humans have many advantages over animals in the realm of logic, reason, care for injured/sick, and compassion in general. Rarely, for example, do humans eat their mates or abandon injured members of their group.

 

Biology does indeed show us that males and females are required for successful mating. Successful mating and successful parenting are two vastly different things.

[BigRedBuster]

There are some really good parents who are gay and heterosexual. There are some really screwed up families of both gay and heterosexual families.

 

One thing that is clear (to me anyway) is the increased need for organizations like Teammates, Big Brothers/Big Sisters..etc. indicates that lack of good parenting in our society is a problem.

 

Another thing I think is clear is that strong leadership is needed in the family.

 

In an absolute perfect world there would be both male and female strong leadership in parenting roles in every family. The problem is, the world isn't perfect.

[knapplc]

There are some really good parents who are gay and heterosexual. There are some really screwed up families of both gay and heterosexual families.

 

Absolutely. Being "good" and being "screwed up" are not limited to sexual preference, therefore sexual preference shouldn't be a factor in determining who is or isn't qualified to be a parent. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and everyone should initially be eligible.

[Landlord]

I'm not asking for much, just a peer reviewed study that suggests that kids raised by gay parents are less adjusted than those raised by straight parents.

 

 

 

I've read a few over the years, but am having a hard time finding free access to some. Here's the result of a quick google search:

 

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2012/06/17/two-peer-reviewed-studies-find-mom-dad-better-than-mom-mom/

 

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=16223&department=BLI&categoryid=family

[Junior]

I'm not asking for much, just a peer reviewed study that suggests that kids raised by gay parents are less adjusted than those raised by straight parents.

 

 

 

I've read a few over the years, but am having a hard time finding free access to some. Here's the result of a quick google search:

 

http://watchdogwire....r-than-mom-mom/

 

http://www.cwfa.org/...tegoryid=family

 

So one of those suggests that there is no statistically relevant difference between the two groups... right? And the other is in a journal about religion. Sorry, not passing the smell test.

[TGHusker]

A few more links to ponder..

 

This article begins by talking about the benefits of traditional marriage and then compares the traditional to the homosexual marriages - citing studies along the way.

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4426843/k.9AFE/Heterosexual_and_Homosexual_Marriages.htm

 

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

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap/

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/a-dad-does-matter-to-a-child-whether-gay-couples-like-it-or-not/story-e6frg6zo-1226124001348

Quoted in Part:

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

Not all marriages do create children – but typically they do, and the institution exists for the typical case of marriage. Homosexual relations cannot create children and cannot provide a child with natural role models; such relations are important to the individuals involved, and demand neighbourly civility, but they do not meet nature’s job description for marriage.

As van Onselen notes, homosexual couples now enjoy equality with male-female couples in every way short of marriage. It must stop short of marriage, because the demands of adults must end where the birthright of a child begins. Marriage and family formation is about something much deeper than civil equality; it is about a natural reality which society did not create and which only a decadent party like the Greens (in Australia) , so out of touch with nature, would seek to destroy

 

http://www.doctors4family.com.au/references/

 

 

 

 

http://sydney.edu.au/law/news/docs_pdfs_images/2011/Sep/FKS-ResearchReport.pdf

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Since I think that this falls under the over-reaching topic of "psychology"--I'll give my best stab at how one person or group could go about successfully answering this question (and dammit, I really should be studying/preparing for a research conference tomorrow/working on my application to be a research ambassador, but this is too much fun--I love this stuff)

 

Our criterion here is good parenting. Well, what constitutes good parenting? Is it how successful the kid is in school and as an adult? Or is it simply that the kid doesn't become a delinquent? Or is it other's perceptions of the quality of the parenting? Or something else? Or a combination of all the possible criteria? Each variable we use as a criterion is going to produce a different set of significant and non-significant predictors.

 

What are our predictors which could theoretically have a link to the criterion? Let's use the second criterion; specifically a measured score of delinquency (for a lack of better term). Predictors we could use are the parent's personality, parenting style, parent's jobs, the strength of the parent's relationship, parent's perceptions of younger children, parent's sexuality etc...

 

We throw those variables into a multiple regression model and we get our results. If the model is significant, then we look at which predictors are significant and use those to evaluate on a case-by-case basis how effective future parents will be at raising children.

 

But are we getting the full picture? Definitely not, for a multitude of reasons.

 

--REASON #1: There are more things outside of parenting which could affect whether a child becomes a delinquent. We didn't measure those in this model. We'd have to do more to determine if that model is worth using in spite of the fact that there are variables outside the control of the parents that could produce a delinquent child

 

--REASON #2: In order to use a model with future data, it has to be shown that it works on all the data. We need a data set with the criterion and all the predictors. There is a big problem with the predictors that I've listed--social desirability. How many parents are going to say that they are abusive, or that they have a very strict, sometimes unsupportive parenting style? If you guessed very few, you're correct!

 

--REASON #3: Not all that data is easy to collect. More often than not, there is not enough time nor funds to collect all the data we need.

 

So can we say who makes good parents? No, no we can not. PM me if you want more details.

[knapplc]

A few more links to ponder..

 

This article begins by talking about the benefits of traditional marriage and then compares the traditional to the homosexual marriages - citing studies along the way.

 

http://www.probe.org...l_Marriages.htm

 

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

 

http://www.lifesiten...al-parents-hap/

 

http://www.theaustra...o-1226124001348

Quoted in Part:

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

Not all marriages do create children – but typically they do, and the institution exists for the typical case of marriage. Homosexual relations cannot create children and cannot provide a child with natural role models; such relations are important to the individuals involved, and demand neighbourly civility, but they do not meet nature’s job description for marriage.

As van Onselen notes, homosexual couples now enjoy equality with male-female couples in every way short of marriage. It must stop short of marriage, because the demands of adults must end where the birthright of a child begins. Marriage and family formation is about something much deeper than civil equality; it is about a natural reality which society did not create and which only a decadent party like the Greens (in Australia) , so out of touch with nature, would seek to destroy

 

http://www.doctors4f....au/references/

 

 

 

 

http://sydney.edu.au...earchReport.pdf

 

 

Let's look at these sources.

 

Probe.org - a Christian organization. They have several anti-gay articles throughout the site.

 

FRC.org - An organization classified as a hate group focusing on anti-Gay propaganda.

 

Lifesitenews - The study this article is based on is fundamentally flawed, as explained HERE. No data can be drawn conclusively from such a flawed study. The link goes on to state, "There is no basis in the recent history of American social policy for testing the parenting skills of a class of citizens before we grant them permission to parent — or to marry. Given all the research on the hardships of children raised by single parents, there is still no movement to preemptively remove kids from broken homes after every divorce or to ban single people from having kids; such policies would be patently inhumane and unenforceable."

 

The Australian - this is an Australian website discussing the situation under Australian laws. It's also an opinion piece, and while this guy is welcome to his opinion that a child will fare better with a Mom and Dad rather than two Moms, this is not proof of anything.

 

Doctors For Family - again an Australian source (G'day? ) and again rather easy to show that it's not simply a group of 150 doctors, it's a group of religious zealots pushing their agenda who happen to be doctors. Being a doctor doesn't make your opinion on this subject any better, especially when you use that title to cloak your bigotry. The founder of Doctors For Family is an Elder at Morley Baptist Church in Western Australia. His cohort, a psychiatrist, was recently forced to resign his post with the Australian Equal Opportunity Board due to his anti-gay stance - and his relationship with Doctors For Family.

 

I'm not reading the PDF. Maybe it's the smoking gun that proves gay parents are really, really bad. But that's for someone else to dig into. I've debunked enough of this already.

[QMany]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

[ADS]

Things that make you go...

[Junior]

I'd add that Mark Regnerus is funded by the Witherspoon Institute, which according to it's own mission is a group founded on religious principles that is against gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...gay-parent.html

[Count 'Bility]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

While I dont agree with her reasoning, it is her business. She can provide or refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever. She has that right. Go find a different florist then.

 

 

Or is this not America anymore?

[carlfense]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

While I dont agree with her reasoning, it is her business. She can provide or refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever. She has that right. Go find a different florist then.

 

Or is this not America anymore?

If the story replaced "gay" with "black" would you still feel the same way?

 

I understand what you're saying but I think that there should be some limits. (Unless you're Rand Paul who was against the Civil Rights Act before he was for it before he never wavered.)