Lesbian Couples have lower performing children: worse than even single mother homes.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, the most obvious being from a previous heterosexual relationship.

And using a surrogate is a right, sure. Anyone can do it if they find a willing participant, just gets complicated because the surrogate can have a change of heart and yadda yadda.

What if you never had a previous heterosexual relationship or don't want to have one because of sexual preferences? I'd imagine quite a few homosexuals would find it quite degrading to enter a relationship with someone they're not attracted to just to have children.

So if the surrogate has a change of heart or you just can't find a willing one? Oops, suddenly not so much of a 'right.'

EDIT: Clearly, the only solution is growing children in vats.

If they never had a previous relationship then obviously they won't have children before entering into the homosexual relationship. And if they don't want to do it then they don't do it. You're attempting to alter the discussion a bit, here. I never said each of these scenarios was ideal or flawless, only that they do exist.

No, even if the surrogate changes their mind it's still a right, just a conflicting right of another person can come into contact with it. A right doesn't mean there aren't possible repercussions or consequences for engaging in the act, just that legally no one will stop you from attempting it.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, it's still a right, just a conflicting right of another person can come into contact with it. A right doesn't mean there aren't possible repercussions or consequences for engaging in the act, just that legally no one will stop you from attempting it.

To me a right is something that's guaranteed. If it's not, well, you guessed it: it's a privilege.

I think I should clarify that going out to find a surrogate is obviously not forbidden, but the potential conflict arising from it prevents it from being reasonably guaranteed. Bring on the vat-grown children, I say.

Anyhow, it's time to go to bed for me.

Well, despite the fact that I question your definition of the word "right", I simply can't bring myself to disagree vehemently with someone who is supporting vat-grown babies. It's time.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right,

That's where we differ: I think it should be a licensed and insured privilege.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
To me a right is something that's guaranteed. If it's not, well, you guessed it: it's a privilege.

You're defining an "inalienable right" which is different than a "right."

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's where we differ: I think it should be a licensed and insured privilege.

You're defining an "inalienable right" which is different than a "right."

That is certainly not a meritless idea.

You mean the kinds of "inalienable rights" that get alienated all the time?

Interesting, the stuff from "Social Science Research" most so. I tend to bristle at research that looks for correlations in large data sets (400 subjects is, let's be honest, a huge data set), but this is hardly a subject where a proper experiment would be ethical, if possible. I'll have to dig into the methods a bit more, however, I do tend to agree with both sides in this "debate". A great deal of the skepticism of this result seems to be rooted in the political position that lesbians deserve the same rights in terms of child rearing as do other couples, and as much as I agree with that, unless there is some major issue with the SSR research (and it might be reasonable to suggest this given some recent revelations in social science and social psychology research [re: there are massive problems with data fraud]) it seems there might be some truth to the claim that lesbian couples have children with less "success".

I've looked through the thread a bit, but might have missed it; is the data from the OP available as a peer reviewed document?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
That is certainly not a meritless idea.

You mean the kinds of "inalienable rights" that get alienated all the time?

😆 😆 😆

We're looking at you, NSA.

Originally posted by tsilamini
I've looked through the thread a bit, but might have missed it; is the data from the OP available as a peer reviewed document?

You'll have to purchase it. I found a website and you can purchase it for like $35 or something.

I would love for someone else to go through the data and come up with their own results.

Here it is:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1200169X

Edit - Yes, 400 samples is more than enough.

Originally posted by Astner
If you would've bothered to open one either one of the scientific journals uploaded at Baylor University's website you would've known that they were published by professors from the University of Texas Austin and the Pennsylvania State University respectively.

Now since these scientific studies support Christian ideas they're obviously going to be promoted by Christians. However that doesn't make them less rigorous.

That aside, even if they were published by professors at Baylor's your supposed dismissal of them would be an appeal to motivation. On top of that, the scientific journals uploaded at Baylor's website only covers two of the five I cited.

If you had bothered to read any of the articles that you posted links to, then you would know:

[list]The first link is to an article by by Mark Regnerus who authored the study that is the subject of this thread.

The second link is to an article by Paul Amato who was a paid consultant on the study that is the subject of this thread.

The third link is to an article by Peter Sprigg who is a board member of an "ex-gay" advocacy group and is the Senior Fellow for Policy Studies of an anti-gay hate group.

The fourth link does not work.

The fifth link is to a qualitative study of the experiences, coping, and needs, of parents of severely disabled newborns.[/list]

Of the four working links, three are to articles, and the one link to a peer-reviewed scientific study has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Nice try.

I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

Some bitches be cray and I don't believe it can be attributed to their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

What's the context? Were they abusive? Was she religious and adopted? Without context, this might as well be a newspaper headline.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you had bothered to [b]read any of the articles that you posted links to, then you would know:

[list]The first link is to an article by by Mark Regnerus who authored the study that is the subject of this thread.

The second link is to an article by Paul Amato who was a paid consultant on the study that is the subject of this thread.

The third link is to an article by Peter Sprigg who is a board member of an "ex-gay" advocacy group and is the Senior Fellow for Policy Studies of an anti-gay hate group.

The fourth link does not work.

The fifth link is to a qualitative study of the experiences, coping, and needs, of parents of severely disabled newborns.[/list]

Of the four working links, three are to articles, and the one link to a peer-reviewed scientific study has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Nice try. [/B]

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Adam's clearly Thor, so you must be Cap'n.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Adam's clearly Thor, so you must be Cap'n.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The sample size goes into the base population about 11k times. It's a small sample when it attempts to create an establishment based on the overall population. I realize sampling everyone is expensive and unlikely from that standpoint, but this is less than 3k people and not all of them come from same-sex households. It's also funded by a conservative think-tank that is explicitly against same-sex marriage. I wouldn't trust this any more than I was trust a "reliable third party sample" posted on Verizon's website to taut their new coverage map (which somehow covers 96% of Americans but leaves whole swaths of the nation uncovered).

While this may not be the end-all of the issue here, it is still being interpreted to be meaningful in a greater context with an arguably small sample. My graduating class in a small city was about 1k. This sample is being compared to a greater population which is nearly 12k times as large, and again not all of the sampled adults were targets of the study, but used as comparison.

1. The guy lobbies against same-sex marriage.

2. The group which funded this study lobbies against same-sex marriage.

[list]con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
1.
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.[/list]

^ When the institution actively expresses dislike of legalized same-sex marriage and the head researcher does as well, and the former funds a large (and thus expensive) study which just happens to disagree with all other major studies and comes to a conclusion that furthers the bias of both, it's entirely suspect.

The reason you may not conclude this is because it also reaffirms your beliefs, in which case I'm sorry you feel that way.

So really less than 2 % of the sample size actually could be called a stable environment and he doesn't think this makes a difference? That is a variable in the equation. If a heterosexual couple lives together for 18+ years and the child has stability, and another child does not have that stability, regardless of his or her parents' sexuality they will have a hard time.

A stable same-sex couple should be used as a control against those who are obviously unstable because the impact on the child is very evident. If the researcher chooses to exclude that, assuming it makes no difference and then goes on to cite how random his study is, after he's already established his bias in the issue, I find no reason to believe him.

Wow, you're a piece of work.

The man already has established bias [b]against same-sex couples. The Institute which funded his study is likewise. It is in their best interests to skew the research, avoid anything to put their bias to test, or disprove what they think they know.

Again, this study is not done by someone who has a neutral interest. I don't care how you choose to interpret his words because you desperately want to believe he's right for whatever personal reasons you have, but it takes some serious wool over your eyes to think this study is anything but skewed.

I don't see how this is relevant. If he's talking about bullying being a factor and ignoring it, he's some kind of sophist. Things like SES, bullying, unstable homes, and even constant moving around because of dad/mom's work all affect childhood development and school behavior. He's throwing this out and just using a sample that fits his bias but is somehow random, and gets the result he's already looking for and that appeases the group which funded his study.

No. Quite frankly, the Witherspoon Institute is inclined to work against the interests of the groups. I wouldn't trust them either. Perhaps you've actually you know, read what they stand for?

[list][*] Thanksgiving and the Constitution
by Carson Holloway on November 26th, 2013
Strict separation of church and state would require us to throw out Thanksgiving as a religious holiday proclaimed by the president. Instead, we should embrace Thanksgiving and throw out strict separationism as a misguided interpretation of the Constitution.

[*] "The Conservative Mind" Turns Sixty
by Tim Goeglein on November 25th, 2013
With optimism, precision, and intellectual elegance, Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” defined what it meant to be an American conservative for the second half of the twentieth century.

[*] Jonathan Rauch’s Denial
by Doug Mainwaring on November 22nd, 2013
Jonathan Rauch, in his memoir Denial, argues that only access to the institution of marriage can make gays and lesbians whole. In doing so, he purposefully suppresses the truth that there are many other options available to those who are attracted to persons of the same sex.

[*] Gettysburg and the New "Proposition" of American Politics
by Matthew S. Holland on November 19th, 2013
In Lincoln’s day, America’s dedication to human equality was contested, but its embrace of God’s providential role in the world was a given. Now, the reverse is true.[/list]

You were saying?

I'm at my character limit and arguing point by point is pointless. You obviously subscribe to the logic the conservatives are selling here and it's unlikely that my appeal to reason will sway you, even though the Witherspoon Institute and this researcher are so far from supporting gay rights they might as well be on the moon. [/B]

Originally posted by Epicurus
This post is one of the most beautiful walls of text I've read on this site. 👆

I couldn't find a humble bow gif worthy enough, but thank you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I couldn't find a humble bow gif worthy enough, but thank you.

Oh Great! Now we will never hear the end of it. 😛