Originally posted by dadudemonPerhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?
But if the findings in the study are sound, it shows us that the burden is even worse on children in "other types of relationship" homes.
Damn, where's parallel-universe vision when ya need it.
Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?Damn, where's parallel-universe vision when ya need it.
Ha, I raised this point before you, therefore I am better than you.
Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?
That was a theory I posted, earlier........
Originally posted by dadudemon
My complaint regarding this result is that it, at least partially, is measuring the social pressures such couples create for their children (by simply existing). To me, this is showing the result the prejudice and discrimination are still faced and it takes a toll on the children.
Makes sense that that would be the outcome.
A site dedicated to taking down that specific study...hmm...some good points and some bad.
Seriously, when you see that much backlash and that much dedication, it is indicative that the study was sound and the results telling or the results were completely crap and there is a massive conspiracy.
"But Regnerus’ stated findings were incredibly misleading. Regnerus did not compare children raised by stably coupled same-sex parents with children raised by stably coupled opposite-sex parents. Remember, he only found two respondents who said they were raised by two lesbian parents for their entire childhoods, but he lumped these respondents in with all of the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship. Thus, his conclusion that he had debunked the “no differences” theory is not supported by the data he analyzed. Instead, Regnerus had effectively measured children raised in stable household to children whose households were characterized by instability."
That's misleading and dishonest of the author of those words. His goal was to compare 'intact biological family' with that of "not intact family." In doing so, he compared exactly what he set out to compare and he proved his hypothesis that same-sex parents are not the "same" as their counterparts as other studies have shown. He showed the lesbian mothers have quite unstable lives and relationships as it regards children.
"Many critics of this study, including Regnerus’ professional organization, the American Sociological Association, have pointed out that the negative outcomes were predictable rather than revelatory."
I believe that's what I said, too. 313
It also contradicts itself by saying it uses a particular and well-understood sampling method (but failed to mention that the sampling method was actually quite good) and then rants about the sampling method being poor. It can't be both a known method used by professionals and then called a poor method (read the FAQ before taking issue with that...it's not a "just because Joe jumps off a bridge doesn't mean it is a good idea" argument. They make it seem like the method is good then degrade the method...).
I want to see results duplication (or not) of this study also using the same or better sampling methods.
Also, where can we get honest science, these days? What is the least politically motivated science that is still interesting? I'd like to actually see some decent science, for once.
Originally posted by Astner
How about posting a few more macros to highlight the hypocrisy further?
You do realize what a macro is, right? Memes, images, and words are not the same thing. I also did some debating in our discussion, which might be an unfamiliar concept to you. See, debating involves actually using reason and arguments to get your point across, while just throwing your opinion out there and then attacking anyone who doesn't fawn all over it is known as being an ass.
You made this claim:
Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.
You did not substantiate it. Instead, you chose to engage in me with ridiculous ad hominems and avoided my argument in favor of trying to belittle me. Thankfully I'm not threatened by your amateur hour behavior, but I am still going to call you out on it.
I have a Bachelor's in Engineering Physics and a Master's in Fundamental Physics—also known as Elementary Particle Physics—as well as an aced high school diploma. How's it looking at your end?
Yeah, and I'm the heir of gods:
On the internet, you can be a level 66 Orc Barbarian, a male school teacher who loves furries, or a NASA badass with a degree of theoretical physics (which I hear is like theoretically making physics up). Considering you carry yourself like a knuckle-dragging troll and you can't so much as illustrate your point, I'm disinclined to think you are a product of higher reasoning, much less higher education.
Again, your point was re-quoted above, and you never substantiated it, but instead focused on me because I challenged your e-thority.
An ad hominem is an insult substituting an argument. An argument spiced up with an insult isn't an ad hominem, you dolt.
We were having a debate here into which you wandered in and offered your opinion as though it was informed. I then educated you and you responded with not counter arguments but personal attacks, which are ad hominems. In case your many degrees prohibit you from reading basic English:
Hopefully that was simple enough for you. Or maybe you will pull the "I don't give a shit" card while attacking me further. Yeah, probably that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's okay by me. 🙂Have at it, mang.
Also, Astner's point about stable Male-Female relationships producing excellent environments in which to raise kids should be obvious. Of course that's going to be the best case scenario. Anyone who argues against that is, as others said, obtuse.
1. I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll. Awesome.
2. Astner doesn't have a point, he just agreed with your point. He can't even take the time out of his no doubt busy day running Science itself to substantiate his point beyond "he has it" and "are you illiterate?"
Adam has a great point here and this should not be dismissed out of hand because of personal confirmation bias:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Regenerus Fallout
How many studies on the same subject have you covered that aren't themselves pet projects of anti-same-sex marriage groups?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, Astner's point about stable Male-Female relationships producing excellent environments in which to raise kids should be obvious. Of course that's going to be the best case scenario. Anyone who argues against that is, as others said, obtuse.
I would 100% argue against that.
Originally posted by NephthysYouTube video
I would 100% argue against that.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll. Awesome.
I told YOU to have at it.
Don't go "psycho rage-face" on me, now. Calm your t*ts and think clearly.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
2. Astner doesn't have a point, he just agreed with your point..
That's not correct. He made that point. I agreed with it. I also added more to his point. Important stuff.
1. I'm not psycho-mad, so this is a lame kind of misdirection. Stay on focus. I let Astner have it because he is deliberately bashing in an attempt to hide the fact that he can't defend the issue whatsoever. If he really had a monopoly on the truth, he had all day to come forward instead of being an internet tough guy.
2. No, he agreed with your "point" which is the foregone conclusion of this biased and controversial study. You've deftly ignored my challenge to find comparable studies that say the same thing that don't both suffer from methodology flaws and researcher bias. This basically tells me that your intent to discuss here is dishonest because you just want to reaffirm what you already beleive.
Why should we consider this "conclusion" relevant or worthy of discussion? It's not repeated, the source is tainted, and it's clearly a political maneuever to stop same-sex marriage in the U.S. because some people can't keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Walks like a duck, etc.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. I'm not psycho-mad, so this is a lame kind of misdirection.
Bla bla bla bla
You posted "psycho crazy shit". Somehow, some way, me telling you to have at with Astner because "OP doesn't give a shit", you said, "I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll."
Tell me that doesn't come off as "psycho crazy shit"...it seems like it to me. You're just looking for a fight by trying to invent problems.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
2. No, he agreed with your "point"
No he didn't.
Go ahead, post that point of mine that he agreed with. 🙂
dadudeman, again, you ignored two challenges to further the validity of this study and continue the discussion by focusing on me and accusing me of "psycho-shit". I want to make some things from my viewpoint crystal clear:
I find your posting of this study and defense of it suspect. You even indicated early on that it changed your beliefs and that you were mislead by other studies before it. Pandering you've done to lesbian couples and their rights later doesn't over-ride that behavior but just draws a stark contrast.
You did admit at some point that stability might be the only real conclusion to draw from this study, but only after defending rigorously the method of the study and how valid it should be taken and refusing to really acknowledge the level of bias which perpetuated the work. 700k from Witherspoon went into this. That's a lot of money to potentially be wrong right before legislation goes through.
Even if the focus is mainly on lesbian couples, the underlying assumption here based on the study you're advocating and the comments you've made is that a hetero nuclear family is preferable, even if only statistically. Astner's first comment is pretty much a knee-jerk response to what he and I both perceived to be your underlying point. You didn't go out of your way to tell him he's wrong.
Regarding you saying "have at it", you quoted him and didn't name drop me, so it looked like you were supporting his boorish behavior. If not, whatever. You can go bla bla bla psycho-shit in an attempt to write me off or accuse me of being combative but again, that's misdirection. I want to know why you refuse to accept the bias of this study. I want to know why you felt this study was worthy of any merit other than bigot propaganda. These are relevant points. Either you're doing some kind of convoluted devil's advocate or just trying to hide your own acceptance of the study. Again, when you say it changed your beliefs and that other studies which contradict it mislead you, this begs for some kind of rationale.