What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[The Midnight]

Some kids are going to be fat because of their fat parents. What if he's picked on a lot in elementary school!

Ban fat marriage.

As I've stated to Darkwing Duck, I'm willing to give him half the argument based on the study of lesbian couples. But the jury's still out on the gay couple.

I do believe in my hearts of heart that you do need that motherly figure in the home to make a family complete. It's just my opinion and my preference.

 

[The Midnight]

10 more seconds of searching.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

EDIT: And before you might make the claim that it doesn't differentiate between lesbian and gay, well, if there's no difference when looking at just lesbians, and no difference when combining the two, what conclusion can you reach with just gay?

A quote from the 1st study you posted:

Studies of gay male families are still limited since the phenomenon of male couples choosing to be parents is relatively new, Stacey said. So results on children raised by gay men are not firm.

The jury's still out IMO.

 

[Siro]

I don't know your mother or if she raised you, but if she did, she would probably feel that she made a number of efforts that were worthwhile and that made use of her motherly instincts. People loosely make this argument that a same-sex couples can raise children just fine. I think it's a reach. Try asking children or yourself if you would have preferred same-sex parents.

I think raising a child to believe a supernatural being will make everything okay if you follow the guidelines he imposed on you is a horrible thing. And yet, I believe all kinds of people can be great parents who produce good and responsible people. I don't advocate robbing people from their right to do as they wish if I don't agree with every single detail of their existence. You do. And you don't even attempt to justify it. All you're saying is that if the environment is not the one you were raised in, then it must be unacceptable.

Since this has been brought up, I'll just go ahead and say it: is that habit or predisposition of yours really conducive to creating an environment for raising children? Is the issue of marriage equality really just about your rights as an individual? Or does your responsibility as a parent go beyond just you as an individual and affect future generations? Maybe you don't want to adopt or raise children and you just want to live that lifestyle. That's fine, but why should the legal definition of marriage, which affects society as a whole, be altered to accommodate your desires?

Yes, that's totally fine. The definition of everything should be examined to accommodate people's tastes and desires, if it is reasonable to do so. For most of history, polygamy was the norm. And yet, look where we are now. Things change.

Your argument seems to be--"Well, heterosexual couples can also have bad marriages, adulterous affairs, and questionable parenting habits too, so why can't we do what we want to do and be legally married?" It's like your argument hinges on the institution of traditional marriage failing so as to accommodate what you want to do.

Nobody is making that argument. The argument is that gay people can raise a child, as they have been for decades in many places, and be as effective as a heterosexual couple. But I don't know why I bother. It's not like you respond to my arguments.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

A quote from the 1st study you posted:



The jury's still out IMO.

First study is from 2008. The second one used data that was available after the first study.

Edit: One of the studies was from 2008. In total, though, the article is from early 2010, which still lacks census data that the second link I provided had.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Shouldn't the question be, would you rather be raised by loving parents or unloving parents?

And this "lifestyle" you keep bringing up, what is this lifestyle in your mind? You seem to have this thought that being homosexual means you live life entirely different than that of a heterosexual with regards to anything outside of sexual orientation. It's like you think homosexual couples can't live in a quiet suburb or something.

No, I said what I meant. There may be a few same-sex couples that can pull together and act like a family to raise children. If a gay couple or lesbian couple can successfully adopt and raise children, if both the couple involved and the adoption agency feel that this is really a good idea, then okay. But I would say that this is not ideal for the children, and I would treat this as an exceptional case of civil union or co-tenancy rather than redefine marriage for everyone to accommodate it.

The lifestyle I'm mentioning refers to physical and emotional intimacy and intercourse by people of the same sex, a sexual indulgence whereby normal gender roles are altered. If that's not what homosexuals do, then pardon me, I've been misled throughout the course of this discussion.

This thread is asking for people's stance. I think I've given my stance several times now, and my stance isn't changing just because some others aren't personally happy with it. It's an individual rights/state's rights issue, and people who make decisions on behalf the state have to consider the bigger picture and their responsibility to the society as a whole. To say, "Well heterosexual marriages are often dysfunctional too!" isn't an argument.

 

[The Midnight]

First study is from 2008. The second one used data that was available after the first study.

Edit: One of the studies was from 2008. In total, though, the article is from early 2010, which still lacks census data that the second link I provided had.

Respectfully, I'll again refrain from making any judgement call before I see a gay-couple specific study.

We both know the 2010 study doesn't make a distinction between the two and the final result can very easily be skewed one way.

Edit: Moreover, the 2010 only looks at grade-repetition rates at school. It doesn't take into account emotional well being of the child that Catchall has referred to. To be honest this is such a big topic that needs to be looked at in more detail and in different aspects, and a few studies aren't going to easily change my feelings.

 

[Gameface]

There are adopted twin studies that show that parenting doesn't even really matter all that much. So there's that.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

There are adopted twin studies that show that parenting doesn't even really matter all that much. So there's that.

I think I agree with this. How do you really measure "good parenting"? I get that a lot of the argument is based on the "ideal" household with "ideal" parents, but that doesn't exist anywhere. As long as you raise the kids, keep them healthy, get them out of the house and they are relatively happy, then you are a good parent. It's not really fair or accurate to compare parenting jobs (unless there is some serious neglect/malnourishment issues).

 

[Darkwing Duck]

No, I said what I meant. There may be a few same-sex couples that can pull together and act like a family to raise children. If a gay couple or lesbian couple can successfully adopt and raise children, if both the couple involved and the adoption agency feel that this is really a good idea, then okay. But I would say that this is not ideal for the children, and I would treat this as an exceptional case of civil union or co-tenancy rather than redefine marriage for everyone to accommodate it.

And you have provided NOTHING to back that up, while the other side has provided plenty so far. So again I ask, to you this time, how does your opinion sound any more intelligent than the 2+2=5 opinion? It also sounds like you're saying that homosexual couples do not form what you would consider a "traditional family" type structure as often as heterosexual couples do. Prove it.

The lifestyle I'm mentioning refers to physical and emotional intimacy and intercourse by people of the same sex, a sexual indulgence whereby normal gender roles are altered. If that's not what homosexuals do, then pardon me, I've been misled throughout the course of this discussion.

This thread is asking for people's stance. I think I've given my stance several times now, and my stance isn't changing just because some others aren't personally happy with it. It's an individual rights/state's rights issue, and people who make decisions on behalf the state have to consider the bigger picture and their responsibility to the society as a whole. To say, "Well heterosexual marriages are often dysfunctional too!" isn't an argument.

When you come out swinging by saying, "Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it can be dysfunctional," then the rebuttal you decry is most certainly a legitimate counter-argument to that.

 

[Gameface]

I think I agree with this. How do you really measure "good parenting"? I get that a lot of the argument is based on the "ideal" household with "ideal" parents, but that doesn't exist anywhere. As long as you raise the kids, keep them healthy, get them out of the house and they are relatively happy, then you are a good parent. It's not really fair or accurate to compare parenting jobs (unless there is some serious neglect/malnourishment issues).

Yeah, good parenting apparently just means keeping the little ****ers alive until thy're 18. Last weekend I was listening to a thing about it on NPR.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Respectfully, I'll again refrain from making any judgement call before I see a gay-couple specific study.

We both know the 2010 study doesn't make a distinction between the two and the final result can very easily be skewed one way.

Edit: Moreover, the 2010 only looks at grade-repetition rates at school. It doesn't take into account emotional well being of the child that Catchall has referred to. To be honest this is such a big topic that needs to be looked at in more detail and in different aspects, and a few studies aren't going to easily change my feelings.

So lesbians = no different and lesbians and gays = no different, than gays =/= no different? Is that what you're saying? You really think there isn't something out there after spending so little time finding those?

 

[The Midnight]

So lesbians = no different and lesbians and gays = no different, than gays =/= no different? Is that what you're saying? You really think there isn't something out there after spending so little time finding those?

Alright, let's see. There's an article here:

https://healthland.time.com/2012/06/11/do-children-of-same-sex-parents-really-fare-worse/

And here's a quote from the article:

The NFSS, in contrast, found that adult children of people who have had same-sex relationships were more than twice as likely as children from intact straight homes to be in therapy “for a problem connected with anxiety, depression, relationships, etc.,” more likely to be on public assistance (but, importantly, also more likely to have been raised with public assistance), less likely to have a full-time job, less likely to have voted in the 2008 elections and tended to have achieved less formal education.

I'm not saying any study in particular is definitive.

All I'm saying is, there are more studies to be carried on all aspects of the child's life before we can say for sure one way or the other.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Alright, let's see. There's an article here:

https://healthland.time.com/2012/06/11/do-children-of-same-sex-parents-really-fare-worse/

And here's a quote from the article:



I'm not saying any study in particular is definitive.

All I'm saying is, there are more studies to be carried on all aspects of the child's life before we can say for sure one way or the other.

That's a good link since it linked to the actual study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

The biggest issue I've found with the study is that it doesn't seem to differentiate between planned and unplanned same sex families. The study is about adult children of people who have had a same sex relationship. It doesn't seem to be about children raised in a household with two same sex parents that would consider themselves to be married. The latter part of that statement is impossible, anyway, given the scope of the study, dealing with adult children who grew up when gay marriage was obviously not allowed. It seems the study includes children who grew up in a household with a mother and father, to which one of them had an outside relationship with someone of the same sex. I really wish they would have made that differentiation, or was more distinct about it.

In any case, from the study itself:

It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages

(section 1.3, paragraph 2)

There are other things I'd discuss about the study, but I don't think it'd be taken in the context I would intend them to be in.

 

[The Midnight]

That's a good link since it linked to the actual study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

The biggest issue I've found with the study is that it doesn't seem to differentiate between planned and unplanned same sex families. The study is about adult children of people who have had a same sex relationship. It doesn't seem to be about children raised in a household with two same sex parents that would consider themselves to be married. The latter part of that statement is impossible, anyway, given the scope of the study, dealing with adult children who grew up when gay marriage was obviously not allowed. It seems the study includes children who grew up in a household with a mother and father, to which one of them had an outside relationship with someone of the same sex. I really wish they would have made that differentiation, or was more distinct about it.

In any case, from the study itself:

(section 1.3, paragraph 2)

There are other things I'd discuss about the study, but I don't think it'd be taken in the context I would intend them to be in.

Yes the study has its flaws - not disputing that - all studies do.

But notwithstanding that, another sociologist who reviewed the study said:

Nevertheless, its methodology was endorsed by well-regarded sociologists, including Paul Amato at Penn State, who wrote in an editorial that Regnerus’s study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these groups in the population.” When Amato evaluated NFSS data independently, he found, similarly to Regnerus, that “when averaged across [Amato's] measures of well-being, young adults who grew up with lesbian mothers scored slightly less than half of a standard deviation below young adults who grew up with continuously married heterosexual parents,” he writes. “I would describe this is as a moderately large effect size.” (Amato notes, for the record, that he was also a paid consultant on the study in its development stage.)

What this tells me is that more research needs to be carried out in this field before any definitive conclusions can be made. It's just too early say at this point in time.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Yes the study has its flaws - not disputing that - all studies do.

But notwithstanding that, another sociologist who reviewed the study said:



What this tells me is that more research needs to be carried out in this field before any definitive conclusions can be made. It's just too early say at this point in time.

Again, the study didn't differentiate between continuous same sex relationships and extra-marital same sex relationships, or didn't do so to any major degree.

 

[The Midnight]

Again, the study didn't differentiate between continuous same sex relationships and extra-marital same sex relationships, or didn't do so to any major degree.

Yes - that's exactly my point. Amato (a well-known sociologist in the field) commented that the study is "better situated" than other studies - notwithstanding its flaws (as you've pointed out).

Which tells me that it's still early days in the research on same-sex couples and its effects on children.

 

[Scat]

What makes it better? You could have two gay dads and one could be very emotionally understanding/warm (mother-like) and that would replace the "ideal" mother. Your mom isn't a good mom because of what is between her legs.

Actually, it could help a lot. When little Susie starts to mensturate I'm sure a female could give her a much clearer perspective on what it means, what they'll experience and and even more importantly, how to deal with it emotionally. As a father I cannot fathom trying to deal with this by myself with my three daughters. A male's clinical talk about the subject with a 12 year old girl is a poor substitute for what any female could provide. Even a poor mother would be better than a majority of fathers.

The same could be argued of a father dealing with a son on various subjects as opposed to a mother.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Actually, it could help a lot. When little Susie starts to mensturate I'm sure a female could give her a much clearer perspective on what it means, what they'll experience and and even more importantly, how to deal with it emotionally. As a father I cannot fathom trying to deal with this by myself with my three daughters. A male's clinical talk about the subject with a 12 year old girl is a poor substitute for what any female could provide. Even a poor mother would be better than a majority of fathers.

The same could be argued of a father dealing with a son on various subjects as opposed to a mother.

So the whole purpose of motherhood is to teach your daughters about their period?

 

[Xsy]

So the whole purpose of motherhood is to teach your daughters about their period?

Well that proves it. Two men shouldn't have kids, because if we have a daughter, we can't teach her about tampons.

 

[franklin]

Well that proves it. Two men shouldn't have kids, because if we have a daughter, we can't teach her about tampons.

I'm pretty sure you gay dudes are fully capable of explaining the ins and the ins of cramming big things into small holes.




(was the delivery ok there? I'm drunk & can't tell)