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.

[Autodidact]

In particular it should be noted; The original wrongdoing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association - distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies - continues to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited.

I'll let Dr. Cameron answer these lies:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... uary-2009/

Yes, I'm sure that a man who has been expelled from his professional organization for lying should be believed.

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[22] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[23] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" [wiki]

[Thatguy]

Does this count as a secular argument against homosexual parenting?

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/ ... omosexual/

Throwing out page after page of the same disreputable organizations propaganda pieces isn't what we've been asking for, no. The number of criticisms of Cameron cited in the Wikipedia article alone is enough to cast real doubt on his legitimacy.

And this retraction from my link should remove them:

"Dr. Paul Cameron was not expelled from the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological, nor is there any evidence that he ‘willfully misrepresented research.’ Toby Canning and his dissertation committee (Malcolm Gray, Bob Jacobs, Cyd Strickland, and Thomas Vail) sincerely regret these inaccuracies. We acknowledge that Dr. Cameron’s extensive research on homosexuality and homosexual parents (e.g., 38 articles listed on PubMed) appears in peer-reviewed journals.�

Alas, no. I did read the retraction quote you cited earlier, and took that into account. The fact remains that he has been repeatedly investigated and found to be relying on his own studies that were done with improper methodology such as ludicrously small and/or skewed test samples. And he's been condemned by authors and organizations for blatantly misrepresenting the work of others.

The retraction does not take that back. It only says that they can't show that his blatant misrepresentations were "willful." That they can't prove intent sufficiently to avoid a lawsuit from him justifies the very limited retraction. As for being expelled, he let the investigation of him and his methods go through, the decision be issued expelling him, and then claimed he'd resigned a year before by letter so the expulsion was moot. That doesn't take away the good cause having been found to expel him.

When we discuss inherently non-consensual sex between male adults and male children, this is pedophilia. Unless you have reliable studies showing that a high percentage of adult males who have a sexual preference for adult males are also pedophiles, your faulty research assuming that male adults who have sex with male children are homosexual won't cut it. Nor will your being sure that they must be.

[East of Eden]

In particular it should be noted; The original wrongdoing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association - distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies - continues to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited.

I'll let Dr. Cameron answer these lies:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... uary-2009/

Yes, I'm sure that a man who has been expelled from his professional organization for lying should be believed.

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[22] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[23] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" [wiki]

No doubt the political pressures against anyone doing research against the gay agenda are tremendous. That was how homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders, pure political pressure. How about dropping the ad hominems and address his facts?

[Autodidact]

In particular it should be noted; The original wrongdoing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association - distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies - continues to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited.

I'll let Dr. Cameron answer these lies:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... uary-2009/

Yes, I'm sure that a man who has been expelled from his professional organization for lying should be believed.

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[22] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[23] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" [wiki]

No doubt the political pressures against anyone doing research against the gay agenda are tremendous. That was how homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders, pure political pressure. How about dropping the ad hominems and address his facts?

I don't believe that discredited fraud, Paul Cameron, has ever done any research on the subject of our discussion.

In fact, everyone whoever has done any such research has come to the same conclusion: children of lesbian and gay parents do AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual parents.

[micatala]

In particular it should be noted; The original wrongdoing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association - distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies - continues to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited.

I'll let Dr. Cameron answer these lies:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... uary-2009/

Yes, I'm sure that a man who has been expelled from his professional organization for lying should be believed.

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[22] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[23] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" [wiki]

No doubt the political pressures against anyone doing research against the gay agenda are tremendous. That was how homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders, pure political pressure. How about dropping the ad hominems and address his facts?

THis is fallacious. The substance of Cameron's fraud has been addressed.

Do you have any support for you accusation that this is the result of nothing more than "political pressure?" It seems to me that your assertion here is itself an ad hominem argument. You claim both actions, the one against Cameron and the reclassification, are based on politics and not the merits. Again, do you have any evidence this is the case?

[Chase200mph]

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.

The only argument I can think of is that a union between a man and a woman might produce offspring, and that marriage might reinforce the bond which might provide a more secure and stable environment for upbringing.

Answer: Then I wonder why god designed women to have multiple orgasms AND the means to take on the genetics of the last man she had sex with and the only real defeat of this intelligent design being the circumcision of man which now allows the greater genetic exchanges to happen without showing preference to the last man a women had sexual contact with (her husband)…So, the Jewish practice of circumcision therefore weakens this promise of genetics being passed within a marriage concerning rape and infidelity….

[99percentatheism]

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.

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Actually, if nature is to guide us, then homosexuals themselves should disqualify their couplings from consideration of a "marriage."

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

[Chase200mph]

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.

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Actually, if nature is to guide us, then homosexuals themselves should disqualify their couplings from consideration of a "marriage."

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Answer: Logic is the act of reason, families have always exist outside of this definition….

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Answer: This is complete and utter nonsense of course and sounds more like someone’s homophobia speaking here; nothing in this statement is true. The is absolutely no evidence to support the above statement, in fact the opposite has been noted because gay couples have to fight harder and provide higher standards to keep this kind of ignorance at bay.

Actually, if nature is to guide us, then homosexuals themselves should disqualify their couplings from consideration of a "marriage."

Answer: Ahh, isn’t that cute….little bunnies and doggies getting married because there are not gay.

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

Answer: Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults….nothing more, nothing less. Don’t want to believe this, then just try and get married without consent of the State/government. By the way, the American Christian marriage ceremony is a Pagan ritual and not of the bible. This is NOT a Christian nation, and religion has no rights to mandate or lobby for laws and special privileges.

Have a great day 99

[micatala]

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.

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

Yes, every human being biologically has a father and a mother.

Yes, some children grow up in less than ideal circumstances.

However, you make a huge leap to the conclusion that this means same-sex couples should not be considered "family" or, not stated here, made illegal.

Which of these less than ideal families do you think should be made illegal?

Single parents.
Families that are the result of remarriage after divorce
Other foster parenting situations
Adoptive families
Interracial families


All of these can be shown, via data, to in some ways produce less than ideal outcomes or outcomes that are worse on the average.

If you want to ban same-sex marriage on the basis of "family outcomes" you need to produce the data, and then any criteria that you use to reach a decision must be measured against how it might apply to other similar situated groups. Otherwise equal protection under the law is violated.

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

What secular reasons do you have in mind?


I would agree, civil unions might be considered a reasonable compromise.

As far as families, I challenge you to provide any solid, empirically based reasons gays should not be allowed to have families.

Keep in mind that many gays already DO have families, some as single parents, many with a same sex partner where the children are the biological offspring of one or the other of the two members of the couple.

The data I have seen show these children do on average about as well as children in other types of families.

[Autodidact]

That every single human being is the offspring of a father and a mother, (man and woman) it is only logical that "The Family" consist of father-mother-children.

I think families should consist of the people who do the best job caring for the children, not siring them.

Certainly, some human beings have made something of their life being orphans, adopted or from single parent homes, the intensity of the problems facing society from the products of "broken ot non-traditional homes" literally filling our mental health facilities to overflowing, our prisons to crisis populations and our schools inundated with failing students . . ., to somehow justify same gender couples to be considered in the family structire, is unsound reasoning.

I have no hope that the facts will have any impact on your view, but in fact children from gay and lesbian homes do AT LEAST as well as those from heterosexual homes. In fact, research indicates that where there are differences, those from lesbian families do a little better than heterosexual families. This is attributed to the fact that every child of a lesbian family is wanted and planned for, and therefore cared for a little better, on average.

Why is it unsound reasoning? It's not enough to make an announcement, you need to make an argument. Ideally, your argument should be based on fact, rather than prejudice.

Actually, if nature is to guide us, then homosexuals themselves should disqualify their couplings from consideration of a "marriage."

Why?

Now, if there is logical and dispassionate compromise, then homosexuals could be considered for mongamous life-partner unions, but certainly not a marriage or a family, on purely secular reasons.

What secular reasons?