Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[East of Eden]

So, East, here's my question to you:
Given that the overwhelming result of all the research is consistent, and shows that children of same sex families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families, research of all kinds, longitudinal, case studies, matched samples, from several different countries, by many different researchers, and given that this research has now been accepted by every relevant scientific and child welfare organization, on what basis do you continue to assert that the opposite is true?

Do you have a study that compares the two groups (which I'm sure you'll agree would be the only really helpful study on the subject) and finds the opposite? If so, would you please cite it? If not, would you please stop making this false claim? Thank you.

See post 202. Gay couples are by definition without either a mother or a father. Two mothers don't equal a father.

So I gather that no, you do not have any such studies?

That's right. And by the same token, a mother and father don't equal two mothers. What's your point?

That children don't need two mothers, they need a mother and father.

[Thatguy]

You are certainly selective with your studies. When presented with many showing the deadly effect of the male gay lifestyle (rather obvious), you dismissed it as some kind of Catholic invention.

I appreciate your trying to tell me what my response will be. If only you'd gotten it right it would have saved my having to type my response out for myself. Since we have not discussed this subject before, I am reasonably certain I never blamed the Catholics for those studies.

Do we ban parenthood by everyone who leads a "lifestyle" that increases the parent's health risks? Can people who smoke or eat donuts still adopt children? Deciding who may be a parent based upon whether they fit a highly politicized health ideal for their own lives is a novel and, I believe, repugnant idea. The standards would change with each new study and each political wind favoring one set of studies over another. For a right as basic as raising a family, such whims should not be indulged.

But more to the point, which gay "lifestyle" did they study? The one where gay couples raised children, attending parent teacher conferences and soccer games, putting bandaids on skinned knees, cutting the crust off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? There's considerable risk if the knife is too sharp on the last one, but it's a risk gay parents either recklessly take or cautiously avoid by using a bread knife. I don't know of any studies that gay parents trim the crust off with overly sharp knives at a rate significantly higher than straight parents do.

There are real mental health risks involved in being vilified, mocked, and legally discriminated against. Studies show that gay mental health improves when gay marriage is legal. here's one I've chosen at random on the affects of discrimination on mental health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446893/

It seems uncool to me to say "We should discriminate legally against this group because this group suffers mental health problems when we discriminate against them."

[East of Eden]

You are certainly selective with your studies. When presented with many showing the deadly effect of the male gay lifestyle (rather obvious), you dismissed it as some kind of Catholic invention.

I appreciate your trying to tell me what my response will be. If only you'd gotten it right it would have saved my having to type my response out for myself. Since we have not discussed this subject before, I am reasonably certain I never blamed the Catholics for those studies.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to autodidact.

Do we ban parenthood by everyone who leads a "lifestyle" that increases the parent's health risks?

Where did I say to do that?

Can people who smoke or eat donuts still adopt children? Deciding who may be a parent based upon whether they fit a highly politicized health ideal for their own lives is a novel and, I believe, repugnant idea. The standards would change with each new study and each political wind favoring one set of studies over another. For a right as basic as raising a family, such whims should not be indulged.

But more to the point, which gay "lifestyle" did they study?

This one: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

The one where gay couples raised children, attending parent teacher conferences and soccer games, putting bandaids on skinned knees, cutting the crust off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? There's considerable risk if the knife is too sharp on the last one, but it's a risk gay parents either recklessly take or cautiously avoid by using a bread knife. I don't know of any studies that gay parents trim the crust off with overly sharp knives at a rate significantly higher than straight parents do.

There are real mental health risks involved in being vilified, mocked, and legally discriminated against. Studies show that gay mental health improves when gay marriage is legal. here's one I've chosen at random on the affects of discrimination on mental health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446893/

It seems uncool to me to say "We should discriminate legally against this group because this group suffers mental health problems when we discriminate against them."

Read the link, even in ultra-tolerant Holland, gays have more mental health problems.

[Thatguy]

Do we ban parenthood by everyone who leads a "lifestyle" that increases the parent's health risks?

Where did I say to do that?

While I distinctly remember your argument being that we should not let homosexuals adopt because they are not optimal parents, please correct me if I'm wrong. Should the government allow gays to adopt children? Should homosexuality be a bar from courts granting custody? What are you suggesting be done about homosexuality and the decision to give kids to homosexuals to raise?


Your authority was:
This one: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

This has the same sorts of problems your other opinion piece had, although it is more specific in referring to some of the studies it references. None of the studies selected homosexual parents for studies. This is why Autodidact and I still don't see a citation by you to any relevant study. Do you have a study saying that gays make worse parents? Not some generally anti-gay screed from which you can conclude that gays must, therefore, make bad parents.

My question about how they selected their subjects for studies remains apt. Most of what your polemical author relies upon are outdated studies of skewed research subjects. Reporting the number of partners that people at an STD clinic report having is not necessarily representative of the general public. Any study that leads the researchers to conclude that lesbians are more likely to have sex with lots more guys than heterosexual women do is inherently suspect as well. There are problems, with older studies in particular, with limiting the subjects to openly gay men.

here, and I'm guessing you've seen it, is an opinion essay critical of your author. http://www.freewebs.com/palmettoumoja/J ... 20lies.pdf It's not a scholarly analysis because your article wasn't one either. Scientific papers are subject to peer review to validate their methodology and raise professional concerns about the conclusions. Editorials like the one you rely on are unfettered by such critical analysis, thus they are able to assert whatever they dang well please and reach conclusions without the need for temperance or balanced reflection.

If there's a particular study your author relies on that you'd like to select as an example of how sound his conclusions are and how well they extend to opposing gay parentage, I'd be happy to look at it or, better yet, yield analysis of it to someone better qualified.

[Autodidact]

That children don't need two mothers, they need a mother and father.

You keep saying that, even though it's false.

[Autodidact]

East of Eden:

Lesbians and gay men continue to raise children. Do you think it's better for those children if the parents who are raising them are married, or not?

[East of Eden]

That children don't need two mothers, they need a mother and father.

You keep saying that, even though it's false.

We disagree.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden:

Lesbians and gay men continue to raise children. Do you think it's better for those children if the parents who are raising them are married, or not?

Neither choice, I think it would be better if they had a mother and a father.

[Autodidact]

East of Eden:

Lesbians and gay men continue to raise children. Do you think it's better for those children if the parents who are raising them are married, or not?

Neither choice, I think it would be better if they had a mother and a father.

So you think they should be taken away from the parents who are raising them and placed in heterosexual families?

Or you think that gay and lesbian couples should be prohibited from having children?

btw, what on earth do you base this position on, since it is apparently not based on reality? Might it be just your religious beliefs?

[Autodidact]

That children don't need two mothers, they need a mother and father.

You keep saying that, even though it's false.

We disagree.

Yes, we disagree. I base my views on the facts, as represented by every study ever done, and you base yours on nothing whatsoever.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. It is a fact that children in gay and lesbian families do AT LEAST AS WELL as children in heterosexual families. Your disagreement does not change that fact.

Or did you want to present some facts to show that is not the case? Feel free.