Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Just like us: at least half of gay marriages open

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    I feel like you keep ignoring the most interesting parts of my posts
    Well I tend to answer the parts of people's posts that I find interesting... I don't have any magic way of knowing what parts you find most interesting. Feel free to repost bits you were interested in my responses to that you feel I didn't sufficiently respond to. I don't promise to have any interesting answers though.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by fm93 View Post
      But...he's already posted all that data and evidence showing that Regnerus' study had some flaws due to an apparent conflation of adopters and divorcees with same-sex households. That was the real, substantive rebuttal that addressed the facts head on.
      If you say so. Never mind the fact that his argument was quickly blown out of the water because it lacked substance.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        I feel like you keep ignoring the most interesting parts of my posts
        Yeah, he does that. Based on his follow-up post, I have to assume that he quickly loses "interest" in those points he is unable to answer.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Well I tend to answer the parts of people's posts that I find interesting... I don't have any magic way of knowing what parts you find most interesting. Feel free to repost bits you were interested in my responses to that you feel I didn't sufficiently respond to. I don't promise to have any interesting answers though.
          I thought my comeback r.e. Southern Poverty Law Center was at least mildly amusing, and the fact that you have twice (whether intentionally or not) used precisely the interpretation of Regnerus I suggested you use for your own side without acknowledging that I suggested them is worthy of at least momentary note, but the bit on restorative justice is what interests me most and, apparently, you least.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            I thought my comeback r.e. Southern Poverty Law Center was at least mildly amusing,
            That their name includes "Poverty" but they are rich lawyers?

            you have twice (whether intentionally or not) used precisely the interpretation of Regnerus I suggested you use for your own side without acknowledging that I suggested them is worthy of at least momentary note
            Despite rereading your posts in this thread, I have no clue what you're referring to here.

            Sociologists have done hundreds of studies on parenting aimed at understanding the conditions in which children do well. The Regnerus study purports to give different results, contrary to the other studies. Standard scientific practice is to discard outliers and go with the main result, because everyone knows that sometimes things can go wrong or sometimes by pure random chance the sample doesn't happen to be a representative sample. It would be totally justified to ignore the unusual result without further consideration.

            However, given that other researchers have considered the Regnerus study in great detail, what has been found is that the Regnerus study is a deliberately fraudulent study which mislabels children from broken homes as children raised by gay parents in an attempt to slander gay parenting using the known result that broken homes are worse on average than unbroken homes. This has been extensively investigated by: (a) other researchers, (b) the Journal which published the study, (c) the American Sociological Association, and (d) various judges in court. Regnerus was paid to produce this result by a think-tank and as one court ruled after reviewing the documents involved in the production of the study: "The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged." Regnerus also admitted on the witness stand that he believed gay people were going to hell.

            Given the completely worthless and fraudulent nature of the Regnerus study, I don't need any interpretation of it for 'my side'. Some posters in this thread seem to have taken Regnerus' study far too seriously, particularly in treating it as if it was the only sociological study ever done by anyone, and acting as if anything that could be ever said about parenting or broken homes has to rely on Regnerus' study for evidence. In actuality there are hundreds of studies of parenting and broken homes that inform our general knowledge of such topics. Regnerus' study itself is completely worthless for drawing conclusions on such topics anyway due to its confused groupings: He groups together children who have had very different parenting experiences - we know from other studies that major criteria relevant to childhood outcomes are (a) the number of parents present (single parent vs two parents) and (b) the occurrence or non-occurrence of a parental divorce/separation process experienced by the child... yet Regnerus puts children from both sides of both those criteria into a single category, which covers over all the variables that everyone already knows are important ones.

            the bit on restorative justice is what interests me most and, apparently, you least.
            I support restorative justice. I didn't think you were being serious about the issue at all, because I was assuming you were against gay marriage since you were defending flawed research that was funded by anti-gay groups specifically for the purpose of opposing gay marriage in the US. The fundamental start of any restorative justice would obviously begin by giving equal rights to the historically persecuted minority, and moving on from there to give them additional support because that is what restorative justice is about.

            understanding the nature of the socioeconomic discrimination is key to repairing the damage done.
            True. So read a history book on the topic, or listen to interviews from different parts of the 20th century with various gay people, or talk to some older gay people if you want to understand the nature of the discrimination they suffered... I have. Don't base your knowledge on fraudulent studies done by anti-gay zealots though.

            It's not about reparations: bringing healing to people who have suffered systematic persecution or discrimination isn't just about pouring out the money.
            I suggested a means of restorative justice: solving a lack of money with money. You rejected that means without suggesting any specific alternate means, which I took to imply that you weren't really interested in seeing such people helped and were actually against it.


            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            If you say so. Never mind the fact that his argument was quickly blown out of the water because it lacked substance.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #81
              Sorry for delay in response.

              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              That their name includes "Poverty" but they are rich lawyers?
              No, that they were too sleazy even for lawyers, as evidenced by the legal staff resigning together about 30 yrs ago.

              Despite rereading your posts in this thread, I have no clue what you're referring to here.
              You've been missing the point I've been trying to make to you r.e. Regnerus' study: if you try to refute it by saying that it's an evil evil study, you're just going to feed into your opponent's impression that the academic establishment was just censoring him. Getting them to see Regnerus as evil is as hard as getting you to believe that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam. What I suggest is using the Regnerus study to force people to confront a point that they don't like to acknowledge r.e. the socioeconomic marginalization of LGBT people over the past century or so. You may know about it all, but there are a lot of people out there on both sides of the marriage debate (granted, one side far more than the other) who haven't acknowledged the actual consequences of homophobia. If you want to get through to someone, sometimes you have to use an approach they aren't expecting.

              I support restorative justice. I didn't think you were being serious about the issue at all, because I was assuming you were against gay marriage since you were defending flawed research that was funded by anti-gay groups specifically for the purpose of opposing gay marriage in the US. The fundamental start of any restorative justice would obviously begin by giving equal rights to the historically persecuted minority, and moving on from there to give them additional support because that is what restorative justice is about.
              I have a few reasons, personal and otherwise, for hesitating to denounce Regnerus, but my main goal in engaging you on the Regnerus study was to try to get you to be more nuanced in your critique rather than dismissing it outright as complete junk.

              I suggested a means of restorative justice: solving a lack of money with money. You rejected that means without suggesting any specific alternate means, which I took to imply that you weren't really interested in seeing such people helped and were actually against it.
              You've pointed toward 3 of the 6 practices associated with the implementation of political reconciliation: the creation of just institutions, reparations, and acknowledgment of the harm suffered. I know of three more: apology, punishment, and forgiveness. All of these practices matter, and all of them play some role in accomplishing the goals of restorative justice, both with respect to repairing relationships both between individuals and between individuals and social structures and with respect to developing a narrative that allows society to move forward. But in whatever we try to do with respect to these, it's important to avoid renewing the cycle of oppression, and there are few better ways I can imagine to perpetuate a cycle of oppression than to adopt the pretense of inevitability, to lean on judicial decisions rather than public discourse, and to dismiss all opposition as necessarily homophobic.

              I do not think reparations make a lot of sense without the other practices. In other circumstances in which restorative justice has been implemented, trying to institute reparations without the context of the other practices makes it seem like blood money. Reparations in the form you suggest might be possible to contemplate somewhere down the pipe, but I don't quite see it capable of fulfilling its purpose right now. In any case, I'd rather be putting money toward taking care of homeless LGBT teens than just one small subset of the victims of the divorce epidemic. Furthermore, pushing for same-sex marriage, particularly in the way it's being done now, not only perpetuates a deeply flawed understanding of the social purpose and value of marriage, but polarizes the debate in a way that makes actual encounter between the sides almost impossible.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                No, that they were too sleazy even for lawyers, as evidenced by the legal staff resigning together about 30 yrs ago.
                30 years is a long time in terms of a firm, and I tend to doubt that a serious disagreement 30 years ago about management / policy / direction has much impact today.

                if you try to refute it by saying that it's an evil evil study, you're just going to feed into your opponent's impression that the academic establishment was just censoring him.
                There is always that danger, yes, because people who want to believe will manufacture reasons to believe. Some people are never going to be convinced no matter what I say.

                What I suggest is using the Regnerus study to force people to confront a point that they don't like to acknowledge r.e. the socioeconomic marginalization of LGBT people over the past century or so.
                The Regnerus study does not prove that point in any way that is particularly clear or useful. Making that argument would be extremely difficult, and also play into the misconception that the Regnerus study is somehow the only study sociologists have ever done and that all knowledge needs to be derived with reference to that study.

                You may know about it all, but there are a lot of people out there on both sides of the marriage debate (granted, one side far more than the other) who haven't acknowledged the actual consequences of homophobia.
                I agree that talking about the consequences of homophobia is important. That is something I have done regularly on this site.

                my main goal in engaging you on the Regnerus study was to try to get you to be more nuanced in your critique rather than dismissing it outright as complete junk.
                Okay, well you've failed I guess. I don't see anything to be nuanced about. It's outright junk. It was deliberately fraudulent from the outset. The entire study was deliberately mislabeled and mis-marketed to deceive the casual reader into thinking the study said anything at all about children being raised by people in same-sex relationships, when it didn't even study this. Insofar as it does provide evidence for anything (eg that broken homes lead to worse outcomes for children), those were things that we already knew from lots of other studies.

                it's important to avoid renewing the cycle of oppression, and there are few better ways I can imagine to perpetuate a cycle of oppression than to adopt the pretense of inevitability, to lean on judicial decisions rather than public discourse, and to dismiss all opposition as necessarily homophobic.
                ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

                Your idea of restorative justice is that we should be really really careful not to lessen the oppression on the oppressed group too much in case we cause any harm whatsoever to the oppressors?!?!?

                FAIL.

                Furthermore, pushing for same-sex marriage, particularly in the way it's being done now, not only perpetuates a deeply flawed understanding of the social purpose and value of marriage,
                Er, are you actually expecting me to agree with you on this?

                but polarizes the debate in a way that makes actual encounter between the sides almost impossible.
                It honestly doesn't matter any more. Same sex marriage has won. Support for same-sex marriage is steadily increasing at a rate of 1 percentage point per year, at about the same rate as support for interracial marriage:


                (from here)
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  I'm more like the kid from The Emperor's New Clothes. Unlike heliocentrism, gay deviance is obvious to most people and they have to be mentally molested into pretending otherwise
                  Argumentum ad populum fallacy! Geocentricism was “obvious to most people" too - including those who wrote the bible. They were wrong of course, just as those claiming homosexuality is an unnatural deviance run counter to the findings of a large body of published empirical research, which clearly refutes this notion. It seems that you have been mentally raped into pretending otherwise.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I've met and talked with a number of gay people over the years, and, yes, while they seem to be generally nice people who just want to live and let live, I still believe what they're doing is sinful and ultimately harmful to themselves and society.
                    Delusional disorders are treatable Mountain Man.

                    http://www.drugs.com/health-guide/de...-disorder.html

                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Same sex sexual activity could be argued to be inherently harmful like eating certain non-food items. Same sex "marriage" is argued to not be marriage at all, just like glass and metal aren't food. Look, if you're going to argue against somebody, you should at least know what their argument is. That's a reason I have been trying to stay out of Nat. Sci. 301. I'm afraid I don't know the arguments well enough.
                    So could (and was) miscegenation, but only by certain religious types and/or bigots, not by those who know better.

                    BTW: Those using the bogus Regnerus Study to support their argument seem unaware that it's been utterly discredited.

                    http://www.regnerusfallout.org/the-story
                    Last edited by Tassman; 03-15-2015, 05:25 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.
                      This is an odd way of stating it. "An evolution in marriage"? I would say it is more of an evolution in a tax advantaged and culturally prestigious relationship. It's close minded to put marriage in such a box like this.

                      “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”
                      Its odd to use the word marriage here. Its more of an innovation in American tax advantaged and prestigious relationships.

                      So while the legal fight over same-sex marriage plays out, couples say the real battle is making relationships last — and their answers defy the prevailing definition of marriage.
                      These article relationships have nothing to do with marriage but more to do with the tax advantages and having a culturally prestigious relationship. The writer of the article is making quite a stretch with the connections unless he wants marriage to be something as simply for the tax advantages and cultural prestige. However, this would be a closed minded view of marriage.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                      16 responses
                      148 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post One Bad Pig  
                      Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                      53 responses
                      395 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Mountain Man  
                      Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                      25 responses
                      113 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post rogue06
                      by rogue06
                       
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                      33 responses
                      197 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Roy
                      by Roy
                       
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                      84 responses
                      365 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post JimL
                      by JimL
                       
                      Working...
                      X