Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

[Sea of red]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6825[/ATTACH]

Another pointless and failed attempt at a funny brought to you by Bill The Cat.

[Bill the Cat]

Another pointless and failed attempt at a funny brought to you by Bill The Cat.

hqdefault.jpg

[Sam]

Pap did a great job of ripping your arguments apart and exposing their biasness that lies beneath, so I'll just sit back and watch the fun.

Um, no.

Still too busy with other matters to dive into the studies (though I again maintain that it is on the detractors to refute the consensus) but let's all get on the same page here:

Paprika's argument, as I understand it, is that it's wrong to make the statement: "The consensus of studies demonstrates that children of same-sex partners show no developmental disparity to children of opposite-sex partners in the general population." Paprika disputes the clause "in the general population," arguing that too many studies relying on sample sets that have potential selection problems (i.e., NLLFS) to make this claim.

Yours and others' argument, as I understand it, is that there is an inherent detriment to same-sex partners raising children, that the best environment features opposite-sex partners. Here, Paprika's criticism doesn't apply, as the statement would be "The consensus of studies demonstrates no developmental disparity between children of same-sex partners and a similar sampling of opposite-sex partners." Here, studies using data sets like NLLFS, so long as they compare families grouped by similar criteria, are unequivocally valid.

So if you're arguing that there's an inherent "penalty" to same-sex parenting, Paprika's arguments here won't do you any good. The consensus of studies does indeed show that no such penalty exists; Paprika's argument, as I understand it, goes only so far as to say "The claim of a broad consensus showing parity between children of same-sex partners and children of opposite-sex partners in the general population is inherently weak at best and dishonest at worst."

[lilpixieofterror]

When applying stats to people researchers tend to input variables that give them a desired outcome.

You need to follow the evidence and if it leads to a conclusion you don't like. Deal with it. Such is life.

Sure.

I answered this before. You've gotten my opinion, now go look for it in previous reply to you.

And you got mine. These people are coming forth and saying they thought their childhood was missing something. We can't just ignore it because what they are saying goes against the narrative. Do they have a valid point or not?

So what? Are these kids in prison or mentally unstable? Lots of people in single parent households state this stuff too, so are you going to rally against single parenting, an advocate it be illegal? People see how families are television are depicted, and often feel that's the bar they were entitled to, not realizing the parent may have had a good reason for raising them away from the other parent. You have to make the best of what you're given in life, and try not to wish for things you don't have.

Among the things a parent must provide for, they have to provide for their children's emotional well being too. Since both children of gay parents and single parents report they felt their childhood was missing something; does that mean that those homes are the best environment for kids to be raised in? Besides, TV has single parents and gay parent households too and isn't as though there's a major social stigma against either one. You're also forgetting that they have peers too and they all report one thing, they believed they were denied something important in their childhood. So what is the best possible environment for a child to live and grow up in?

Why bring it up at all we can do is speculate as to who is right? Like I said, we don't know the whole dynamic of their situation or how it came to be. This is why statistics should not be trusted on matters like these, as the variables are much more numerous than often accounted for.

Because children are not computers and have emotional needs that need to be made too. We can't just ignore what we don't like and when we are dealing with a life that can be around for 100 years or more. Is it not important to make sure we get this thing right? The variables are complex, so what? What is the best environment for children to grow up in?

Oh and don't use words like "data" or "research" if you don't want science or mathematics to get involved.

Emotional well being doesn't compute for many people. If providing for kids was as simple as making a checklist, about anybody can be a parent. These kids are saying they are missing something. Are they right? Should we be concerned and do whatever we can to make the best situations for the most we can produce? Yes or no?

You were rockin' and rollin' on that first part and then you had to go and talk about "tends". Are people responsible for themselves or not? When you talk about how it's all down to the family, you enable people to not be responsible for their actions.

Are people products of what they grew up with or not? It is very interesting to see how divorce affects not just mom and dad, but kids as well. Should we just ignore what we are seeing?

There is no "ideal" situation as I've already stated. I know people that gay parents and love them, and they turned out to be good citizens. I know people raised by adoptive parents, or single parents and they love each other, and also turned out just fine. Are you saying their love isn't legitimate? Are you saying it was mistake or that it can't happen in other households?

Have you ever been part of one? How do you know? Besides, what measurements are we using? Good citizens? What is a 'good citizen' and how do we measure that? Likewise, how about their future career. What group performs best, when it comes to their careers? How about their relationships? What group does best, when it comes to relationships? There's more to being a parent than merely keeping them out of trouble or meeting some check marks. Finally, I never said anybodies love isn't legitimate, but love without focus or discipline or many other things isn't the best environment for raising a kids either. Even Homer Simpson, obviously loves his kids a great deal, but is he the best parent? Remember, we are trying to discover what is the bet environment for kids to be raised in and why that is the best environment.That is what we are trying to discover.

Believe me, I agree children shouldn't be used as shields to justify religious creeds -- we're on the same page.

Or political creeds. We can't forget that.

Like I have already said, there is no ideal situation. What works for some may not work for others. Why is everything always some sort of "one size fits all" solution when it comes to conservative religion?

Do you have any evidence for this claim or is that just something you believe on faith and nothing else?

I pretty much raised my younger brother, so I actually do know a bit about caring for something.

And I took care of my younger brothers too, but being a parent is different than that. Trust me, I know.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't trust a word the Focus on the Family types have to say either. Those kind of people tend to just throw a lot of intellectual pollution out there that nobody in academia takes seriously, and for good reason.

Dr Lopez is a bisexual male, a single parent, and says he doesn't support that group or like groups either. Why do you think I specifically picked him? I picked him because he doesn't have an axe to grind for my side and if anything, his axe would be far more in favor of the GLBT community than for any traditional Christian community. Glaad doesn't like him because their usual tricks don't work, so thus the out of context quoting of his words and the flat out lying from them.

[lilpixieofterror]

Um, no.

Still too busy with other matters to dive into the studies (though I again maintain that it is on the detractors to refute the consensus) but let's all get on the same page here:

Paprika's argument, as I understand it, is that it's wrong to make the statement: "The consensus of studies demonstrates that children of same-sex partners show no developmental disparity to children of opposite-sex partners in the general population." Paprika disputes the clause "in the general population," arguing that too many studies relying on sample sets that have potential selection problems (i.e., NLLFS) to make this claim.

Yours and others' argument, as I understand it, is that there is an inherent detriment to same-sex partners raising children, that the best environment features opposite-sex partners. Here, Paprika's criticism doesn't apply, as the statement would be "The consensus of studies demonstrates no developmental disparity between children of same-sex partners and a similar sampling of opposite-sex partners." Here, studies using data sets like NLLFS, so long as they compare families grouped by similar criteria, are unequivocally valid.

So if you're arguing that there's an inherent "penalty" to same-sex parenting, Paprika's arguments here won't do you any good. The consensus of studies does indeed show that no such penalty exists; Paprika's argument, as I understand it, goes only so far as to say "The claim of a broad consensus showing parity between children of same-sex partners and children of opposite-sex partners in the general population is inherently weak at best and dishonest at worst."

My argument is about ideals and what is the best environment for children, not that anything less than the ideal is destructive to children (another one of your sad little strawman, figures). Pap has showed that your examples are examples of snowballing. They are attempting to compare the best of one group, with the average of another group. Dishonest to the core, but tell yourself whatever you want to hear Sam. I already know debating with you is pointless and you'll do anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.

[Sam]

My argument is about ideals and what is the best environment for children, not that anything less than the ideal is destructive to children (another one of your sad little strawman, figures). Pap has showed that your examples are examples of snowballing. They are attempting to compare the best of one group, with the average of another group. Dishonest to the core, but tell yourself whatever you want to hear Sam. I already know debating with you is pointless and you'll do anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.

I restated your argument correctly; if something is ideal then anything less than than the ideal suffers a detriment or a penalty. So there must be a quantitative distinction between the ideal and the non-ideal (otherwise there is no reason to call the former "ideal").

Paprika has not yet shown that even most of the "snowball" studies contrast the NLLFS data with the general population or that a fairly representative sample can't be drawn from NLLFS data; we agree about the likelihood of his assumption and so can proceed from that point but it has not yet been shown. And, as I stated, at least some of the NLLFS studies make efforts to compare similar families — since your argument requires an inherent detriment to same-sex families, even such "snowball" studies can be used to refute the position (and you would still have the problem of the nationally-representative studies).

You need to actually address the discussion as it exists before you start snarking at other people, Crystal. The above post from you doesn't even try.

[lilpixieofterror]

I restated your argument correctly; if something is ideal then anything less than than the ideal suffers a detriment or a penalty. So there must be a quantitative distinction between the ideal and the non-ideal (otherwise there is no reason to call the former "ideal").

Paprika has not yet shown that even most of the "snowball" studies contrast the NLLFS data with the general population or that a fairly representative sample can't be drawn from NLLFS data; we agree about the likelihood of his assumption and so can proceed from that point but it has not yet been shown. And, as I stated, at least some of the NLLFS studies make efforts to compare similar families — since your argument requires an inherent detriment to same-sex families, even such "snowball" studies can be used to refute the position (and you would still have the problem of the nationally-representative studies).

You need to actually address the discussion as it exists before you start snarking at other people, Crystal. The above post from you doesn't even try.

Yep, pointless as ever. Sorry Sam, I don't bother debating with you because I already know how you operate.

Liberal = defend to the death
Conservative = refute to the death

And nothing will ever change your mind so I don't even bother. I just insult you instead because it is a better use of my time.

[Sea of red]

Crystal, I can see you made a reply but I won't have time to make a response until tomorrow.

Stay tuned.

[lilpixieofterror]

Crystal, I can see you made a reply but I won't have time to make a response until tomorrow.

Stay tuned.

No problem. Be careful with that big axe while you're gone.

[Sea of red]

No problem. Be careful with that big axe while you're gone.

As was said on an episode of Sealab 2021: "I'm gonna lay down back, cuz our concussion have me sleepy."

[lilpixieofterror]

As was said on an episode of Sealab 2021: "I'm gonna lay down back, cuz our concussion have me sleepy."

I forgot about that show. Some funny stuff. Goodnight and talk later.

[Sam]

Can you define what you mean by developmentally? There have been a number of studies that have shown that, at the very least, there may be an affect on the sexual development of children raised by gay parents. I mentioned a few studies to Starlight in another thread some while back, after he made the claim that there was "no evidence suggesting parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the development of sexuality". After pointing these out, he sorta backpedaled and explained that there have been a lot of studies done, and that it's all very complicated, but that the APA and the AMA more or less have the final word on the subject (or at least...that's what I got out of his reply).

http://factsaboutyouth.com/wp-conten...itself2010.pdf
http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/20...uckner_ajs.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10440X06000952
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...2193200502674X
http://link.springer.com/article/10....A1010243318426
http://link.springer.com/article/10....508-008-9449-3

OK; got a chance to look at these. None of them relate to the developmental outcomes of children of same-sex partners compared to children of opposite-sex partners. Four dealt with the prevalence of children whose sexual orientation later in life might correlate with being raised by same-sex partners or homosexually-oriented parents. I do not consider sexual orientations to be inherently good or bad (neither, I believe, do most sociologists or psychologists) and so those are not relevant to this discussion without someone showing that heterosexuality is inherently better than homosexuality (or some location on the spectrum). The last two dealt with the effects of abuse, neglect, etc. on sexual orientation — obviously not relevant to the discussion of whether children of same-sex partners fare worse than children of opposite-sex partners. Any parental figures, gay or straight, who are engaged in abuse or neglect are going to seriously damage their children's development. So there are two questions to ask:

1) Are children of same-sex partners more likely to be abused or neglected than children of opposite-sex partners?

2) Do children of same-sex partners have an inherent developmental penalty compared to children of opposite-sex partners?

So far, we've been dealing with the second question. The first question, while certainly relevant to the discussion, would not invalidate same-sex parenting even if it were shown to be true, however, as there can be many different reasons for such phenomena (economic, geographical, cultural, etc.).

[Adrift]

OK; got a chance to look at these. None of them relate to the developmental outcomes of children of same-sex partners compared to children of opposite-sex partners. Four dealt with the prevalence of children whose sexual orientation later in life might correlate with being raised by same-sex partners or homosexually-oriented parents. I do not consider sexual orientations to be inherently good or bad (neither, I believe, do most sociologists or psychologists) and so those are not relevant to this discussion without someone showing that heterosexuality is inherently better than homosexuality (or some location on the spectrum). The last two dealt with the effects of abuse, neglect, etc. on sexual orientation — obviously not relevant to the discussion of whether children of same-sex partners fare worse than children of opposite-sex partners. Any parental figures, gay or straight, who are engaged in abuse or neglect are going to seriously damage their children's development. So there are two questions to ask:

1) Are children of same-sex partners more likely to be abused or neglected than children of opposite-sex partners?

2) Do children of same-sex partners have an inherent developmental penalty compared to children of opposite-sex partners?

So far, we've been dealing with the second question. The first question, while certainly relevant to the discussion, would not invalidate same-sex parenting even if it were shown to be true, however, as there can be many different reasons for such phenomena (economic, geographical, cultural, etc.).

Ok, so going back to the original post I replied to, and just so I have this straight, you agree that some of the studies I linked do show that being raised by same-sex parents might effect the development of children, but you believe that that development is somehow on par with opposite-sex parenting, because you (and most sociologists or psychologists) cannot see anything inherently positive or negative about certain sexual orientations. Do I have that right?

[Sam]

Ok, so going back to the original post I replied to, and just so I have this straight, you agree that some of the studies I linked do show that being raised by same-sex parents might effect the development of children, but you believe that that development is somehow on par with opposite-sex parenting, because you (and most sociologists or psychologists) cannot see anything inherently positive or negative about certain sexual orientations. Do I have that right?

Yes, as the studies would show only a correlation between being raised by a same-sex parent and the eventual sexual orientation of the child, I would not consider that to be evidence of a developmental disparity between same-sex parenting and opposite-sex parenting, as there is no disparity (from the psychological consensus view or my view) between different sexual orientations.