Supreme Court puts stay on same-sex marriage in Utah

posted at 12:01 pm on January 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The US Supreme Court unexpectedly intervened today to block enforcement of a federal district court ruling that invalidated Utah’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The move effectively halts any same-sex marriages in the state while the case proceeds to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, a stay that the presiding federal judge refused to grant:

 The Supreme Court has put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.

The order follows an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples’ constitutional rights.

The stay was issued en banc from the Supreme Court — and unanimously:

The state’s stay application was made to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred the decision to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday.

Is this a hint as to how the Supreme Court will rule down the line?  Probably not, although it at least expresses their desire for a more careful approach through the federal courts.  The effect of Shelby’s ruling on December 20th was to impose a federal definition for marriage regardless of how Shelby justified his ruling, rather than allow states to define it for themselves.  I’d guess that the justices wanted that kind of redefinition to take place cautiously, with a lot of scrutiny, and without the pressure of having to deal with an avalanche of faits accomplis as a complicating factor.

On the other hand, this may show how the 10th Circuit is likely to approach the issue:

Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utah’s request for a stay three times.

This may well be a rebuke from the top court to the rest of the federal judiciary about refusing stays for obviously activist decisions. I’m not sure it says anything more than that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

Because I’ve tried this before and it usually devolves pretty quickly as people who are really against polygamy try to come up with reasons to support it. It’s difficult to be persuaded or learn much when people don’t really mean what they say. So I want to take a different approach this time. I hold that polygamy and same sex marriage are separate issues and so should be discussed and considered independently of each other. Among the people who think both should be illegal (which I think is an overwhelming majority here) I want to see how much overlap there is between the two issues that I’ve held to be separate, or if maybe there are reasons I haven’t thought of that apply to both that would be a rational basis for a prohibition.
So….. why should polygamy be illegal?
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Lie.

I’ve answered that question several times already.
And every time I press you for your reasoning you dodge.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

I’ve got full access to so cite away as soon as you’re ready to do so.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I’d like to actually read them myself before I cite them. I don’t trust news headlines that pretend to accurately summarize these studies, nor will I trust an amicus curiae brief with an obvious slant to it. Back when I actually studied this during my undergrad (I took about two years worth of psych courses concentrating in child and adolescent psych), we were presented with multiple studies on gay parenting, both pro and con, all from the past two decades. I’m not going to pretend to remember the citations off-hand, and I haven’t read any studies for the past few years. But a few years is small potatoes for a subject which, for actual intensive research, requires a longitudinal approach.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

New Marquette University Study: Gay Parenting Not Good For Kids

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Douglas Allen again! Awesome!

This study got kicked down almost as fast as it was published. I’ll go through just a few of the problems.

For starters, Allen looked at Canadian census data, focused on people between the ages of 17-22 and looked at how many of them graduated from high school. Amongst the 17 year olds you would expect a very low rate with the 22 years old being much higher.

If you read the paper Allen compared four groups: children living with opposite-sex married parents, gay parents, opposite-sex unmarried parents who were cohabitating and lesbian parents. I listed them in the order of likelihood of having graduated from high school from most likely to least likely. So gay parents barely beat out unmarried heterosexual couples and lesbians had the lowest results. The thing is that list also takes them in order from oldest average to youngest. The children of opposite sex married couples had the highest average age and so were the most likely to have graduated. The kids of gay couples and unmarried cohabitators were about the same age and had about the same numbers with gays coming out slightly ahead, and the children of lesbians were the youngest group and also had the lowest graduation rate. So the older you are the more likely you are to have graduated from high school. Duh.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

IMO, the state doesn’t have a compelling interest to deny 3 (or 4, or 5) consenting adults from entering into a contract that they would grant to 2 consenting adults.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM

The reason was that woman had no choice as to marriage – society pretty much required that they be married by restricting their employment opportunities – and since polygamy was worse for them than monogamy the law was protecting them. Not really valid anymore.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

You can provide the benefits without SSM. Let couples who are in a civil union have visitation rights, tax breaks, all the benefits that come with a marriage license.

Personally, I’m not opposed to legalizing SSM, but I think if the gay bullies keep winning battles, they’ll continue trying to encroach on people’s freedom, like forcing people to provide services through penalty of law (like the photographer, cake baker, et al).

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Are you in favor of letting people flout anti-discrimination laws if it’s done in the name of their religious beliefs? If so, how far do you want to go with that?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:53 PM

If you read the paper
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Have you really read the paper? Don’t lie now.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 9:54 PM

So….. why should polygamy be illegal?
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

It shouldn’t be illegal.
It should be decriminalized just like gay relationships.
I don’t think the state has an interest in promoting polygamist marriages like it does gay relationships and so it shouldn’t license them. But polygamists have a stronger case than gays because their relationships produce children.
If the 14th amendment demands gay marriage then it also demands polygamy. And any other partnership that wants government benefits.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Are you in favor of letting people flout anti-discrimination laws if it’s done in the name of their religious beliefs? If so, how far do you want to go with that?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:53 PM

I think that forcing people to provide services through penalty of law is inherently and intensely anti-freedom, and I don’t care if the basis is religious, moral, or if the shopkeeper used a magic 8-ball to make their decision.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Correction:

It shouldn’t be illegal.
It should be decriminalized just like gay relationships.
I don’t think the state has an interest in promoting polygamist marriages like it does traditional marriages and so it shouldn’t license them. But polygamists have a stronger case than gays because their relationships produce children.
If the 14th amendment demands gay marriage then it also demands polygamy. And any other partnership that wants government benefits.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Are you in favor of letting people flout anti-discrimination laws if it’s done in the name of their religious beliefs? If so, how far do you want to go with that?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Are you in favor of forcing people to go against their religious beliefs because acting on those beliefs will hurt the feelings of others?

That’s what we’re talking about we’re not talking about gays being harmed in any fundamental way.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Lie.

I’ve answered that question several times already.
And every time I press you for your reasoning you dodge.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM

You’re still here? The last time I saw you you were providing a neat summation of your argument (which I honestly did appreciate) that if we let the gays get married then incest and polygamy were a comin’, and that that is in no way consistent with history.

Or did you give a couple reasons you specifically oppose polygamy someplace and I missed it? Good Solid B-Plus is actually interesting me so I admit I might be a bit lax with some others at the moment. No slight intended though.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Alchemist, I’m Jewish (by blood, at least; by belief, it’s a bit more touchy). I don’t think a Muslim caterer should be forced to provide food for my wedding if he doesn’t want to.

Do you think the government should force him to do so?

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 10:03 PM

I think that forcing people to provide services through penalty of law is inherently and intensely anti-freedom, and I don’t care if the basis is religious, moral, or if the shopkeeper used a magic 8-ball to make their decision.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 9:56 PM

I personally oppose any and all anti-discrimination laws on that same basis but the sad fact is they’re here, the sadder fact is they’ve been held to be constitutional so in light of the fact we have to deal with the rotten things then we are sort of obligated to apply them.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Alchemist, I’m Jewish (by blood, at least; by belief, it’s a bit more touchy). I don’t think a Muslim caterer should be forced to provide food for my wedding if he doesn’t want to.

Do you think the government should force him to do so?

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Personally, I do not but the law as written sees it differently.

Religion is a particular odd example isn’t it? Race is one thing to protect when it comes to discrimination but race is outwardly obvious and is of course immutable. Religion is purely a choice that can be altered in an instant yet it’s subject to the highest level of scrutiny under Equal Protection claims. Very odd indeed.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:08 PM

I find it interesting that if this really was an issue that Robert Oscar Lopez would put the welfare of children above worrying about what the Southern Poverty Law Center will say about him.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 8:11 PM

The SPLC promotes, encourages, and pushes the murder of conservatives.

Why won’t you deal with that, bigot alchemist19?

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:08 PM

I personally oppose any and all anti-discrimination laws on that same basis but the sad fact is they’re here, the sadder fact is they’ve been held to be constitutional so in light of the fact we have to deal with the rotten things then we are sort of obligated to apply them.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:04 PM

See, I don’t get this. IIRC, you were the guy who was pretty gung-ho about the GOP winning a wave election in 2014 and taking back the WH in 2016. You were very opposed to the “RINO purge” because you think it’s very important to support GOP candidates of all stripes, even the liberal ones, because if we take back Congress we can stem the tide of liberty crushing legislation and maybe even reverse some of the trends that threaten to destroy this country, like the tidal wave of entitlements.

But when it comes to this, you just say “Eh, it’s here, we better get used to it.”

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Are you in favor of forcing people to go against their religious beliefs because acting on those beliefs will hurt the feelings of others?

That’s what we’re talking about we’re not talking about gays being harmed in any fundamental way.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 9:59 PM

I make no bones about it. I’m OK with the return of the “Whites Only” lunch counters or a shopkeeper who puts “Catholics not served here” sign in their window. But the anti-discrimination forces have won out on that so we’re stuck with laws that say you can’t do that. Claiming it was your religious belief that the races shouldn’t mix didn’t save any business owners opposed to segregation in the South back in the 60s either.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:10 PM

Religion is purely a choice that can be altered in an instant yet it’s subject to the highest level of scrutiny under Equal Protection claims. Very odd indeed.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Mainly because it is enshrined as such in the First Amendment.

Isn’t it funny how the mind of the bigot alchemist19 works? A fake “right” like abortion or gay-sex marriage trumps an established Constitutional right.

In the meantime, why won’t the bigot alchemist19 deal with the fact that gay-sex marriage supporters oppose monogamy and promote promiscuity and pedophilia?

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

I personally oppose any and all anti-discrimination laws on that same basis but the sad fact is they’re here, the sadder fact is they’ve been held to be constitutional so in light of the fact we have to deal with the rotten things then we are sort of obligated to apply them.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Nope.

If you truly opposed them, you would agitate for and demand their removal.

Furthermore, you SUPPORT their use when used against the religious beliefs and believers that you have already admitted you hold animus, hatred, and bigotry toward.

So you’re a liar. Worse, you’re a sick liar who exploits gay people to push your antireligious hate and bigotry.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Lie.
I’ve answered that question several times already.
And every time I press you for your reasoning you dodge.
gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM
You’re still here? The last time I saw you you were providing a neat summation of your argument (which I honestly did appreciate) that if we let the gays get married then incest and polygamy were a comin’, and that that is in no way consistent with history.
Or did you give a couple reasons you specifically oppose polygamy someplace and I missed it? Good Solid B-Plus is actually interesting me so I admit I might be a bit lax with some others at the moment. No slight intended though.
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:01 PM

What a douche.
Not only do you dodge questions but you also move goal posts and misconstrue arguments.
I haven’t once mentioned the history – though you’re wrong there as well.
All I’ve said is that you – or anyone – cannot argue that equal protection demands gay marriage but leaves room for a rational basis for excluding polygamists. And you haven’t been able to do this after claiming multiple times you could.
I’ve been pointing out your argument is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

Will the courts apply the same reasoning to polygamists as they do to gays? I don’t know because as has already been pointed out “rational basis” only means whatever someone feels like it means at one moment without any need to be consistent.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

See, I don’t get this. IIRC, you were the guy who was pretty gung-ho about the GOP winning a wave election in 2014 and taking back the WH in 2016.

Of course I’m gung-ho about winning elections. Who isn’t?

You were very opposed to the “RINO purge” because you think it’s very important to support GOP candidates of all stripes, even the liberal ones, because if we take back Congress we can stem the tide of liberty crushing legislation and maybe even reverse some of the trends that threaten to destroy this country, like the tidal wave of entitlements.

Yes and no. I’m all for purging Grahamnesty and anyone else like him in red states where we can do better. If anyone wants to purge Mark Kirk though and replace him with a DeMint clone then I will take exception to that strategery because it would be very difficult to get that person elected in Illinois. I tolerated Castle not for love of the man but because it’s Delaware and that’s the best we were likely to do.

But when it comes to this, you just say “Eh, it’s here, we better get used to it.”

Good Solid B-Plus on January 6, 2014 at 10:09 PM

I differentiate the here-and-now with a better future. I would love to start repealing anti-discrimination laws but until we have the right people in place to do it we have to make the best of them while they remain on the books.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Douglas Allen again! Awesome!

This study got kicked down almost as fast as it was published.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Only by pro-homosexual forces that are anti-science.

Here, a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census is used to identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents, and to examine the association of household type with children’s high school graduation rates. This large random sample allows for control of parental marital status, distinguishes between gay and lesbian families, and is large enough to evaluate differences in gender between parents and children. Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons

sentinelrules on January 6, 2014 at 10:17 PM

I differentiate the here-and-now with a better future. I would love to start repealing anti-discrimination laws but until we have the right people in place to do it we have to make the best of them while they remain on the books.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:16 PM

LOL.

Which you interpret as using them to strip religious believers of their Constitutional rights.

So you don’t oppose these laws at all. Indeed, you openly support their abuse.

You are a fascist and a liar. You’re also a coward, as is seen from your constantly running away from people who present facts.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Correction:

It shouldn’t be illegal.
It should be decriminalized just like gay relationships.
I don’t think the state has an interest in promoting polygamist marriages like it does traditional marriages and so it shouldn’t license them. But polygamists have a stronger case than gays because their relationships produce children.
If the 14th amendment demands gay marriage then it also demands polygamy. And any other partnership that wants government benefits.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

I think you might be being facetious here. It seems odd to me that you could be worried about a slippery slope a few hours ago but now have done a complete 180. It’s possible but I’m harboring a couple doubts.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Have you really read the paper? Don’t lie now.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 9:54 PM

I saw someone linked to it a month or two ago so I’ve seen it before.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:19 PM

I think you might be being facetious here. It seems odd to me that you could be worried about a slippery slope a few hours ago but now have done a complete 180. It’s possible but I’m harboring a couple doubts.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Actually, that’s just your attempt at a malicious lie to get out of answering.

You’re spinning and crying and screaming because you’re trapped and exposed as a bigot and Alinsky liberal who smears and attacks others while ignoring facts.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I saw someone linked to it a month or two ago so I’ve seen it before.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:19 PM

Nope. Another lie, just like when you tried to quote

Perez v. Sharp

and ran away when I provided the actual brief which proved you had never read it.

Such a pathetic, malicious liar. Typical liberal, trying to argue emotions and throw tantrums instead of being fact based.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Claiming it was your religious belief that the races shouldn’t mix didn’t save any business owners opposed to segregation in the South back in the 60s either.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:10 PM

No reason to repeat the mistake.

Although given our history with racial slavery and Jim Crow I support making an exception and violating the civil rights of religious racists.

I don’t think that exception applies to violating the rights of homophobes.

Again, society must have an overriding interest to violate the principle of individual freedom.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Must prove that it has an overriding interest, I should have said.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:25 PM

The main reason alchemist19 is trying so desperately to ignore me is because it makes obvious the ulterior motives for his bigotry when an actual gay person is calling him out on it.

Alchemist19 is an antireligious bigot. Pure and simple. He also hates gays, as is shown by his screaming fit calling all gay people who disagree with him “self-loathing” and mentally ill.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:25 PM

What a douche.

Beginning with an insult? That’s the sure sign of a winning argument!

Not only do you dodge questions but you also move goal posts and misconstrue arguments.
I haven’t once mentioned the history – though you’re wrong there as well.
All I’ve said is that you – or anyone – cannot argue that equal protection demands gay marriage but leaves room for a rational basis for excluding polygamists. And you haven’t been able to do this after claiming multiple times you could.
I’ve been pointing out your argument is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

Will the courts apply the same reasoning to polygamists as they do to gays? I don’t know because as has already been pointed out “rational basis” only means whatever someone feels like it means at one moment without any need to be consistent.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

And I pointed out that this slippery slope argument is very old and has never borne out in the past.

Here’s the decision and dissent in the California case that legalized interracial marriage in that state.

http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Perez_v_Sharp_CA_1948.pdf

Skip to page 26, which is well into Justice Shenk’s dissent in support of maintaining the prohibition. Sitting right there you will find the same warning

The question is not merely one of difference, nor of superiority or inferiority, but of consequence and result. The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages (Pen. Code, 285; Civ. Code, 59; 42 C.J.S., Incest, 1), and bigamy (Pen. Code, 281; Civ. Code, 61

So you will have to forgive me if history makes your paranoia of a slippery slope seems silly.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Idiot Kennedy wrote majority opinion stating that states’ voters are the ones to make the decision, never mind his vote that disagreed with his “opinion”. This should be interesting now to see how Kennedy votes once reminded of his “majority opinion”. UT AG must make it a point to remind the idiot of his own words and make him eat them.

riddick on January 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM

The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages

What factors is he talking about? I would guess genetic – in which case he’s been proven wrong by advances in our knowledge of genetics.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:40 PM

And I pointed out that this slippery slope argument is very old and has never borne out in the past.

Here’s the decision and dissent in the California case that legalized interracial marriage in that state.

http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Perez_v_Sharp_CA_1948.pdf

Skip to page 26, which is well into Justice Shenk’s dissent in support of maintaining the prohibition. Sitting right there you will find the same warning

And the desperate bigot walks right into the trap.

You see, alchemist19, we were aware you hadn’t read the decision. That’s why I posted that link — to watch you dig yourself a grave by frantically searching for the word “bigamy”, missing the fact that Justice Shenk is using those examples to demonstrate the power of the state to limit marriage, not as an example of “slippery slopes”.

In short, you contradicted yourself. You AGREE with Shenk’s argument that the state has the power to do so, and thus are trapped.

You’re a very unintelligent bigot. But we all knew that.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Same sex marriage has mostly certainly precluded any supposed genetic reasons for keeping consanguineous marriage illegal. There’s no way two brothers can yield a child with any genetic defects.

But bigots like alchemist19 ignore this, also.

blink on January 6, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Moreover, bigots like alchemist19 have screamed that children are irrelevant to marriage and that the state has no compelling interest in the welfare of children.

Hence, there is no rational basis for banning incest OR polygamy.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:45 PM

This should be interesting now to see how Kennedy votes once reminded of his “majority opinion”. UT AG must make it a point to remind the idiot of his own words and make him eat them.

riddick on January 6, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Kennedy will vote for federalism. The question is how Roberts will figure out a way to make it a case about the standing issue.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

What factors is he talking about? I would guess genetic – in which case he’s been proven wrong by advances in our knowledge of genetics.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:40 PM

If that’s true then shouldn’t what we’ve learned about the nature of sexual orientation also mean that we’re obligated to reconsider how we treat it with respect to access to marriage?

It could even be argued a prohibition on same-sex marriage is more unjustifiable than a prohibition on interracial marriage because when you prohibit the latter people will still have some reasonable opportunity to get married. If you prohibit gay marriage then gay people are without any realistic option.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Kennedy will vote for federalism. The question is how Roberts will figure out a way to make it a case about the standing issue.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

There are interesting ways to game it out.

The Tenth Circuit initially refusing the stay sort of tips their hand that they’re likely to rule in favor of SSM. That then puts Utah in a position of what to do next. Based off the Windsor ruling I think it’s more likely than not that the court votes to legalize gay marriage nationwide if a case comes before it. If Utah suspects this do they even appeal if they lose at the appeals court? Why bring the rest of the nation down with you? Does the governor politically “have” to appeal it even though it’s worse in the long run for his side of the issue to do so?

I’m not even sure Kennedy wants to decide this one right now. The nation’s moving fast enough that the court can make the same ruling with less controversy in a few years when a solid majority of the population wants it done so I’m not sure Kennedy votes to grant cert. The four libs could force the issue if Utah loses and appeals but I don’t know if they even want to do this one right now.

Either way it’s going to be very interesting to watch.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

I think you might be being facetious here. It seems odd to me that you could be worried about a slippery slope a few hours ago but now have done a complete 180. It’s possible but I’m harboring a couple doubts.
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:18 PM

I’ve been perfectly consistent. And answered all questions posed to me.
You on the other hand have taken multiple contradictory positions and refuse to substantiate many claims you make.
Everyone else here seems capable of grasping my position. And have difficulty making sense of yours.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

If that’s true then shouldn’t what we’ve learned about the nature of sexual orientation also mean that we’re obligated to reconsider how we treat it with respect to access to marriage?
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

No.

Because, as Bill DiBlasio’s wife and LGBT heroes Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson show, people can and do change sexual orientation.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:55 PM

The Tenth Circuit initially refusing the stay sort of tips their hand that they’re likely to rule in favor of SSM. That then puts Utah in a position of what to do next. Based off the Windsor ruling I think it’s more likely than not that the court votes to legalize gay marriage nationwide if a case comes before it.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

All the more reason to jam a case through now.

Force Kennedy and the bigot John Roberts to destroy all credibility to push their gay-sex agenda and produce a public outcry to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction.

Bring it on. It’s time people realized that bigots like alchemist19 have so completely perverted the justice system that we the people need to exercise our Constitutional rights to strip the bigot courts of power.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 10:58 PM

I’ve been perfectly consistent. And answered all questions posed to me.
You on the other hand have taken multiple contradictory positions and refuse to substantiate many claims you make.
Everyone else here seems capable of grasping my position. And have difficulty making sense of yours.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 10:54 PM

I’m still not sure what you’re believing at the moment because it’s not making a lot of sense. Before you said

If the 14th amendment demands gay marriage then it also demands polygamy

but there’s no reason to believe that statement is true. So if it’s not true do you still support polygamy?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Beginning with an insult? That’s the sure sign of a winning argument!
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:33 PM

And circular arguments and dodging hard questions is a sign on the weakness of your arguments.
So is your hypocrisy, double standard and shifting goal posts.

But I shouldn’t call you names. You’re still intellectually dishonest though.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 11:03 PM

but there’s no reason to believe that statement is true. So if it’s not true do you still support polygamy?

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM

LOL.

Perhaps it’s time to confront the lying bigot with the actual statement.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now come, lying bigot.

First state how this requires gay-sex marriage.

Then explain how it does not similarly protect any other form of marriage.

Can you do that, lying bigot?

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM

but there’s no reason to believe that statement is true. So if it’s not true do you still support polygamy?
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:02 PM

I’ve already answers that several times. Seriously how many times can you answer a question and get an answer before you acknowledge it.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM

And circular arguments and dodging hard questions is a sign on the weakness of your arguments.
So is your hypocrisy, double standard and shifting goal posts.

But I shouldn’t call you names. You’re still intellectually dishonest though.

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 11:03 PM

And we were being so civil…..

I don’t think I’ve used any circular arguments or flat-out dodged a hard question; admittedly my style is to charge in and take arguments head-on as they come and granted with the question of the legality of polygamy I’ve tried to feel it out a bit more just so I can construct an answer in a way that suits you without being distracted or drawn into the weeds and so if that seems overly evasive we can set the record straight.

Ask me anything you want and I’ll try to give you the most direct answer I can. And then I’ll ask you something back.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM

I would have no problem with gaymarriage if we reinstituted strict laws against adultery.

As to polygamy (polygyny), why would any rational male agree to let alphas grab more than their fair share? That’s just stupid.

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

If that’s true then shouldn’t what we’ve learned about the nature of sexual orientation also mean that we’re obligated to reconsider how we treat it with respect to access to marriage?
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

I don’t know that we’ve learned that much about same sex orientation. Human sexuality is messed up – you can’t say that some people are born this was and some that way as far as desire is concerned. You can say they are born (for the vast majority) as Men and Women for reproductive purposes.

And you can say that when a man and a woman have a sexual relationship babies can happen. And when a same sex couple has a sexual relationship that won’t happen.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 11:24 PM

why would any rational male agree to let alphas grab more than their fair share?
fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

They do anyway.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Ask me anything you want and I’ll try to give you the most direct answer I can. And then I’ll ask you something back.
alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM

If equal protection applies to gays then why doesn’t it apply to polygamists?

And why doesn’t it apply to people in general who want a partnership to pool resources around an estate?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 11:30 PM

I don’t know that we’ve learned that much about same sex orientation. Human sexuality is messed up – you can’t say that some people are born this was and some that way as far as desire is concerned. You can say they are born (for the vast majority) as Men and Women for reproductive purposes.

And you can say that when a man and a woman have a sexual relationship babies can happen. And when a same sex couple has a sexual relationship that won’t happen.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Sexuality is certainly complex but I personally have yet to meet anyone who chose their sexual orientation, and I have a tough time believing that the super-feminine overtly gay kid chooses to be that way because he likes getting picked on or being ostracized. Maybe there are some people out there who would choose to be LGBT but for the life of me I can’t understand how or why.

Yes gay couples can’t produce a child on their own but even if they don’t want to use a surrogate to produce a child that’s the offspring of at least one partner they can still provide a good home for the kids who are already here now and need one; it’s not just about making more people, it’s about bringing up the ones who are already here. The ASA amicus brief I linked to earlier contained a study that showed high-risk kids who had been in the foster care system can promote healthy development of a child who it would be otherwise very difficult to find a good home for. To me it seems like they’re performing a great service for society by doing that.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

They do anyway.

kcewa on January 6, 2014 at 11:25 PM

Grab more than their fair share? Of course alphas always try to do that, and in a promiscuous society it is easy, perhaps even easier than in a polygamous one. That doesn’t answer the question. Why do males allow it?

Is it because the males are so dimwitted they all think they are alphas? Or do they enjoy the idea of their females having intercourse with alphas?

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

If polygyny is legal, then polyandry is, too. Do you have a reason to believe that it wouldn’t even out?

blink on January 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Your premise is not necessarily so, and of course it wouldn’t even out.

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Sexuality is certainly complex but I personally have yet to meet anyone who chose their sexual orientation, and I have a tough time believing that the super-feminine overtly gay kid chooses to be that way because he likes getting picked on or being ostracized. Maybe there are some people out there who would choose to be LGBT but for the life of me I can’t understand how or why.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

You could ask Bill DiBlasio’s wife, Jim McGreevey, or “Bishop” Gene Robinson, all of whom switched sexual orientations.

But you won’t, because you’re a bigot who is desperately spinning and spinning and spinning because of your irrational hatred and malice toward religious belief and religious believers.

Next of your blathering:

Yes gay couples can’t produce a child on their own but even if they don’t want to use a surrogate to produce a child that’s the offspring of at least one partner they can still provide a good home for the kids who are already here now and need one; it’s not just about making more people, it’s about bringing up the ones who are already here. The ASA amicus brief I linked to earlier contained a study that showed high-risk kids who had been in the foster care system can promote healthy development of a child who it would be otherwise very difficult to find a good home for. To me it seems like they’re performing a great service for society by doing that.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Uh huh.

And the same people like you who push gay-sex marriage scream and cry and insist that childrearing and parenting have absolutely nothing to do with marriage and are irrelevant.

The true sickness here is that people like you who denigrate marriage and parenthood are the ones who create the foster-care mess, and then want to denigrate and pervert marriage and parenthood even more to “fix” it.

Poison as food, poison as antidote. Your bigotry and hate is poison, and your sickness and desperate hatred of moral and valuable behavior is destructive to society.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 11:43 PM

And of course the bigot alchemist19 wants to give foster children to gay-sex couples.

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.

They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.

Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”.

The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.

The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.

This is why bigots like alchemist19 are dangerous. They scream and and attack parents while handing children over to pedophiles in the name of political correctness and liberalism.

northdallasthirty on January 6, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Sexuality is certainly complex but I personally have yet to meet anyone who chose their sexual orientation

Everyone you have ever met has chosen their sexual orientation. Few choose it rationally or even consciously, but they all choose, usually in the form of dozens or hundreds (thousands?) of small choices prior to puberty (say, ages 5 to 10).

Anyone who paid any real attention to their own thinking during that time knows this is true.

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:53 PM

If equal protection applies to gays then why doesn’t it apply to polygamists?

And why doesn’t it apply to people in general who want a partnership to pool resources around an estate?

gwelf on January 6, 2014 at 11:30 PM

I’ve tried to post my response twice but it keeps getting caught in moderation for some reason. I’ll keep trying but I might have to break it up into pieces.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:02 AM

That was two so I’ll take the first one first and come back to the second.

The problem with polygamy…..

Polygamy has been practiced in many societies so we already know certain things about it, and one of those is that the practice isn’t balanced. Polygynous arrangements (one man with multiple women) are far more prevalent than polyandrous (one woman with multiple men) ones are. That’s been the historical trend and most if not all of the attempts to legalize polygamy here have been brought by polygynous groups. If more men are taking multiple wives then there are wives taking multiple husbands then we’re going to end up with a surplus of unmarried men. Not just unmarried men, but men that have no prospect for marriage or who have to compete very hard to find a wife.

China is confronting this exact issue right now, not because of polygamy but because of sex-selective abortions of a lot of little girls. And all these extra men are getting to be a problem.

http://cnn.it/1gBxuwh

How much polygyny needs to go on to create an imbalance? The answer is: not a lot. If a mere four percent of men take two wives, three percent take three and two percent take four then there will be six unmarried men competing for the affections of five unmarried women. One in six is going to lose.

So based on the historical track record of polygamy and the social ills associated with a lot of men with little hope of ever getting married we have a rational basis to restrict the practice of polygamy. There are other problems associated with it but this is one of the more cut-and-dry, and more than sufficient to justify the prohibition.

I should also point out that this imbalance means the (mostly downscale) bare branch men most affected by this practice be prevented from ever enjoying marriage so allowing polygamy actually has the net effect of restricting access to marriage. Gay marriage in contrast allows access to marriage to a group of people who would not otherwise be reasonable able to access it. The issues couldn’t be farther apart.

So there, that’s your rational basis.

Now it’s my turn. If there were no slippery slope to incest, polygamy or any other ill that you might imagine, would you change your mind on the issue and support same sex marriage?

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Hey, it posted! Apparently it was the CNN link that was killing it. Ed has taught the site well!

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Is it because the males are so dimwitted they all think they are alphas?

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Bingo.

kcewa on January 7, 2014 at 12:08 AM

Is it because the males are so dimwitted they all think they are alphas?

fadetogray on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Bingo.

kcewa on January 7, 2014 at 12:08 AM

LOL!

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM

Maybe there are some people out there who would choose to be LGBT but for the life of me I can’t understand how or why.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 11:36 PM

You need to get around more. I’m guessing you don’t live in a deep blue city?

kcewa on January 7, 2014 at 12:12 AM

So there, that’s your rational basis.

So your argument is that history and tradition are grounds to ban polygamy.

While you scream and cry that it’s not enough to ban gay-sex marriage.

So you are a proven hypocrite and bigot who demands a “rational basis”, then won’t accept one using exactly the same logic and argument when provided to you.

And then you try this hilarious deflection.

Now it’s my turn. If there were no slippery slope to incest, polygamy or any other ill that you might imagine, would you change your mind on the issue and support same sex marriage?

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Ah yes, the liberal “hide the consquences” question.

Unfortunately, we’re all adults here, and are well aware of the dangers of cheapening and degrading marriage to fit the hatred and animus of people like yourself.

Especially given that you really aren’t acting out of anything other than antireligious bigotry and in fact scream that gays who refuse to play along with your charade are “self-loathing” and “mentally ill”.

The reality is very simple; as I’ve pointed out, the sickness of gay-sex marriage supporters such as yourself is so great that you will allow children to be molested so that you can have “trophy gays”.

northdallasthirty on January 7, 2014 at 12:14 AM

Three’s much more. The two sexes are literally made for each other, in a way that leaves them incomplete if they do not come together. But that does not change the fact that mating is very much a major part of marriage.

Supposition.

Supposition? Supposition? I spoke of biology. As in, the male organ fits into the female organ, and both are required to produce a child. Sperm from the male, egg from the female. Again, both required. A child has a father and a mother.

This is not just some minor social custom. This is how babies are made, families are formed, children are raised, and the next generation comes into being.

It’s pretty clear that the male and the female are designed to fit together. Literally made for each other, and I don’t just mean Joe-Biden-literally.

You are born male or female. You are not born homosexual. What causes homosexuality is debatable, but it’s a struggle to find any links to biology at all. The major factors still appear to be environmental.

Not only is homosexuality not innate, but a number of homosexuals have turned to normal sexuality without any help from psychology at all.

The claim that homosexuality is inborn, immutable, and inevitable is insupportable.

The root of sexual orientation isn’t as simple as “If you have this gene then you’re gay,” but that doesn’t mean it’s a matter of personal choice. There isn’t a “gay gene” (at least that has been identified yet) but there isn’t a “tall gene” either. Human beings, and indeed all mammals, are more complex than that. The link you provide repeats the claim that concordance rate of homosexuality in identical twins is less than 100% but that’s not unique amongst things that people have no control over. I don’t think you would claim that autism is a choice but that shows up very early in life and its concordance rate isn’t 100% either. A cleft palate isn’t a choice but that’s got a less than 100% concordance rate in identical twins. The prenatal environment isn’t always the same for identical twins, there are epigenetic difference between the two (and epigenetics have been linked to sexual orientation).

Yes, epigenetics is the latest reed the homosexual community is hanging onto for a biological basis. It’s very much like the search for the missing link. Every time someone thinks they might have found a biological explanation for homosexuality, it gets tremendous play in the media. Then the claim either falls apart completely or ends up failing to prove what it was claimed to prove. But those who only pay attention to the headlines — which is most busy people — wind up believing after so many times that the biological basis is well-proven.

The epigenetics thing is similarly scanty evidence. It’s only convincing to those already convinced.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice and a person can change at will?

“Choice” is a loaded question. It’s not necessarily a choice to be tempted to do something. It is very much a choice to do it. Married men have a choice every day of whether to follow their male nature, or to respect their wedding vows.

Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby has essentially turned the question from behavior and tendencies into a concept of a “sexual orientation” that is what you are, rather than what you do. This seems motivated by a desire to make themselves into a protected class, so they can borrow the same arguments of racial discrimination, even though they are not a visible race, language, creed, nationality, and/or ethnicity. Simply by engaging in a particular behavior, they can claim to be a whole separate class of people being discriminated against.

You’re the one who denied there was any relevance between one sort of homosexual behavior and another. I’m commenting on your rather strange attempt to disclaim any relevance. I can only suppose you’re making the extraordinary claim that there is zero added risk for declaring homosexual couples safe adoptive parents, even though homosexuals as a group appear to be roughly 10 times as likely to be child molesters as heterosexuals. (If 3% of the population is homosexual, but 33% of child molestation is homosexual)

Another red herring. Adoption is a separate issue, and in fact adoption by homosexual individuals is legal in all 50 states. Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

At any rate, my original point here was simply your unwillingness to admit relevance when it doesn’t support your position.

There’s no relevance to admit to.

Well, of course, nothing is ever relevant if it doesn’t go your way.

On the subject of gays rearing children, while I don’t discount the risk of increased risk of child molestation from homosexual “couples,” I’m not saying I would expect it to be widespread. But I believe children growing up in homosexual households will face many other problems, even with the best of intentions, because they are not being raised by a mother and father. As Robert Oscar Lopez has said:

After having spent the last year involved in the debate about same-sex parenting, I can say the following with great confidence: both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are afraid of naming child abuse by same-sex couples. The issue is so raw and painful that even critics of same-sex parenting are scared to go there.

Pro-SSM people say gays have been unfairly stereotyped as child abusers, so any discussion of gay child abusers is adding to their oppression. Anti-SSM commentators generally don’t want the added fuss of showing up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of homophobes. So a general pattern emerges: even when you critique same-sex parenting, you must never do so in terms that sound accusatory or equate homosexuality with child abuse.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM

I find it interesting that if this really was an issue that Robert Oscar Lopez would put the welfare of children above worrying about what the Southern Poverty Law Center will say about him.

As far as I can tell Lopez is stating his own opinion without facts to back it up. The people who’ve actually gathered facts and studied it have determined that kids do just fine.

And this is still a red herring. The subject is marriage, not child rearing.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Hogwash. The studies that claim that kids do just fine when raised by homosexuals are based on pitifully small self-selected samples. Those same people will then attack the Regnerus study. The Regnerus study was not perfect, but met a higher standard than the others. The attack against the Regnerus study was exactly what we’ve come to expect from anyone not toeing the party line on homosexuality, but it has also been defended as staunchly as it has been attacked.

In response, a group of 18 professors – including Michael Emerson, Christian Smith, Rodney Stark, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Bradley Wright – posted a defense on the website of Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. They argue that rather then Regnerus’ study being “anti-gay,” “breathtakingly sloppy,” and “gets everything wrong” (as many media outlets have alleged), such public criticism is unwarranted for three reasons:

1) Media outlets have not properly critiqued the “small, nonrepresentative samples” used by previous studies that showed equal or more positive outcomes for children of same-sex parents vs. heterosexual parents. “By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions,” they wrote.

2) Those critical of Regnerus surveying children from same-sex relationships with high levels of instability “fail to appreciate … that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin.”

3) Another new study (published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family) – also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey – comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study.

Found here

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 12:15 AM

You need to get around more. I’m guessing you don’t live in a deep blue city?

kcewa on January 7, 2014 at 12:12 AM

I could go to my window and see the Pacific Ocean right now and I’m not in San Diego so I’m drowning in blue. :) I didn’t say there might not be people out there who would choose if honestly given the option, I just said I don’t understand how or why they would.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:17 AM

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Now several studies to ban homosexual marriage.

Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.4

A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”5

Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that”. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.6

Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”7

A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”8

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.9

In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.”10

Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.11

In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.12

A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. 13

sentinelrules on January 7, 2014 at 12:18 AM

Supposition? Supposition? I spoke of biology. As in, the male organ fits into the female organ, and both are required to produce a child. Sperm from the male, egg from the female. Again, both required. A child has a father and a mother.

This is not just some minor social custom. This is how babies are made, families are formed, children are raised, and the next generation comes into being.

It’s pretty clear that the male and the female are designed to fit together. Literally made for each other, and I don’t just mean Joe-Biden-literally.

All depending on whether or not you think you need a child to be complete. It sounded to me like you were talking more about a state of mind than you were about birthing a child.

Yes, epigenetics is the latest reed the homosexual community is hanging onto for a biological basis. It’s very much like the search for the missing link. Every time someone thinks they might have found a biological explanation for homosexuality, it gets tremendous play in the media. Then the claim either falls apart completely or ends up failing to prove what it was claimed to prove. But those who only pay attention to the headlines — which is most busy people — wind up believing after so many times that the biological basis is well-proven.

The epigenetics thing is similarly scanty evidence. It’s only convincing to those already convinced.

So you’re flatly dismissing scientific evidence out of hand for no reason with no justification and that’s supposed to be persuasive. Got it.

Well, of course, nothing is ever relevant if it doesn’t go your way.

Supposition.

Hogwash. The studies that claim that kids do just fine when raised by homosexuals are based on pitifully small self-selected samples.

You have a source for this information?

Those same people will then attack the Regnerus study.

Regnerus attacked his own study.

The Regnerus study was not perfect,

Understatement of the day, right here.

but met a higher standard than the others.

You have a source for this information?

The attack against the Regnerus study was exactly what we’ve come to expect from anyone not toeing the party line on homosexuality, but it has also been defended as staunchly as it has been attacked.

The dismissal of the Regnerus study was based on specific scientific criticisms of his methodology. Science tries to check itself like that. Regnerus himself even admitted the study was flawed and there’s merit in the criticisms. Is Regnerus credible when he’s making his claims but not credible when he questions his own claims?

Now to the defense of Regnerus you linked.

First claim:

1) Media outlets have not properly critiqued the “small, nonrepresentative samples” used by previous studies that showed equal or more positive outcomes for children of same-sex parents vs. heterosexual parents. “By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions,” they wrote.

So if I turn up a study that had 200 participants you’ll accept it as scientifically valid? If you decide to answer this you had best choose your answer wisely.

2) Those critical of Regnerus surveying children from same-sex relationships with high levels of instability “fail to appreciate … that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin.”

Yes, and that criticism is valid. Children need a stable environment growing up and if you select only the children who remember one parent at some point having a homosexual relationship you’re allowing children of divorce into the sample group and comparing them to children who did not experience divorce. Regnerus is stacking the deck and that’s why his conclusions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

3) Another new study (published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family) – also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey – comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study.

Reference?

Is that the best that you’ve got?

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM

Now it’s my turn. If there were no slippery slope to incest, polygamy or any other ill that you might imagine, would you change your mind on the issue and support same sex marriage?
alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 AM

No.

First of all I think the state is too involved in marriage and handing out benefits in general.
But I think the state can claim some narrow interest in heterosexual relationships because of their capacity to produce children and these relationships being the most natural and nurturing institution to rear children.
The states narrow interest in marriage is in the children it produces.

If the courts are doing to interpret that equal protection demands gay marriage then I want them to apply that reasoning consistently and allow all partnerships the same benefits. But I oppose this interpretation because it’s legislating from the bench and erodes our constitution.

If someone proposed a “civil union” like law that allowed for partnerships centered around an estate that was not specified to being married or even a couple then I might support that.

gwelf on January 7, 2014 at 12:53 AM

You all have been at this for hours……

libfreeordie on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 AM

No.

First of all I think the state is too involved in marriage and handing out benefits in general.

I agree but I think we both know they’re not going to stop that any time soon.

But I think the state can claim some narrow interest in heterosexual relationships because of their capacity to produce children and these relationships being the most natural and nurturing institution to rear children.
The states narrow interest in marriage is in the children it produces.

But that’s neither been their history, and if you want to define it solely producing more people then you’re leaving the door wide open for polygamy.

If the courts are doing to interpret that equal protection demands gay marriage then I want them to apply that reasoning consistently and allow all partnerships the same benefits. But I oppose this interpretation because it’s legislating from the bench and erodes our constitution.

Even arrangements it does have a rational basis for prohibiting?

I don’t see how the Constitution is eroded. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is broad. If anything the passage of that eroded the rest of the Constitution and this is just the logical conclusion.

If someone proposed a “civil union” like law that allowed for partnerships centered around an estate that was not specified to being married or even a couple then I might support that.

gwelf on January 7, 2014 at 12:53 AM

Estate planning is legal right now and can take many forms with many different parties, it’s access to the privileges like hospital visitation, medical leave and the like that are at issue.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 1:42 AM

You all have been at this for hours……

libfreeordie on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 AM

http://xkcd.com/386/

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 1:42 AM

I find it interesting that if this really was an issue that Robert Oscar Lopez would put the welfare of children above worrying about what the Southern Poverty Law Center will say about him.

As far as I can tell Lopez is stating his own opinion without facts to back it up. The people who’ve actually gathered facts and studied it have determined that kids do just fine.

And this is still a red herring. The subject is marriage, not child rearing.

alchemist19 on January 6, 2014 at 8:11 PM

BTW, if you’re separating SSM from parenting in SSM households — which is more than the courts have done — then you should love Robert Oscar Lopez. He was raised by a lesbian couple, and has no particular objection to “civil unions.” But he firmly believes that such couples should not be raising children. In his own words:

*I have always supported civil unions for homosexual couples with the stipulation that no legal “right to children” is implied by such arrangements. Due to the fact that every jurisdiction that has endorsed same-sex marriage has also encouraged same-sex parenting arrangements to which I object, I oppose same-sex marriage but it is not my primary area of interest.

But then, he doesn’t buy the attempt to destroy the Regnerus study, so you might … not love him.

I had nothing to do with Mark Regnerus’s study into parenting structures, except that I defended him against vicious persecution by ligbitists in 2012. I didn’t meet Regnerus until well after the study was published. And I was not shy about saying he was a nice person who actually wanted to hear about my experience, instead of shutting me down. Yes, I was raised by a lesbian, and yes, I had some reasons to feel that Regnerus’s findings were helpful in counterbalancing the bogus “consensus” on same-sex parenting that pre-existed the 2012 study.

But the Regnerus study was a massive, well-funded, multi-year project, much of which was carried out while I was on active duty with the military! Yes, for most of 2010, I was not even in contact with any civilians except for my wife. I was on post and all my mail was being read by cadre.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 1:55 AM

Now several studies to ban homosexual marriage.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion we’re going to get away from the marriage issue very quickly?

Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.4

Looks like I was right!

How old were those homosexuals when they did that? Were they also minors?

A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”5

Umm, this was a study done on convicted sex offenders, not on the gay population in general. So of convicted pedophiles only 2-4% of them who also are sexually attracted to adults are attracted to adult men. The other 96-98% who have an adult sexual orientation, it would seem, are attracted to adult women even if they molest boys. This is why you bringing up pedophilia when discussing issues related to adult sexual orientation (be it heterosexual or homosexual) is so baseless.

Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that”. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.6

This was a study where people were shown only the faces of a person and asked to rate how attractive they were. Gay men rated the 18 year old male they used for the study the most attractive. Heterosexual men rated a 25 year old the most attractive while an 18 and 28 year old were lower. Even though the gay men picked the younger (but legal) person so it doesn’t mean anything bad, the study is still crap. The researchers could have used a smoking hot 25 year old female for the heterosexual men to look at and a less attractive 18 year old. Conversely if they give the gay men a 25 year old Frank Luntz to look at they’re probably going to rate him unattractive. They don’t control for the attractiveness of the model they used so there’s not much that can be learned here.

Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”7

Your earlier reference highlighted how disingenuous it is to bring up pedophiles when talking about people with an adult sexual orientation and then trying to related the two so moving on….

A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”8

Same problem repeats. Moving on…

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.9

Are we ever going to get to discussing the marriage issue or are you going to keep trying to tie in pedophilia? Moving on….

In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.”10

I’m seriously commenting as I go so I haven’t read the next reference yet but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion it’s going to be about child molesters and not people with an adult sexual orientation.

Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.11

I was right! Moving on……

In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.12

With the way you talk about child molesters you would almost think it was related. I can see by my side thing being scrolled almost to the end that I’m almost done with your list. Maybe you saved something different for the end.

A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. 13

Didn’t think so.

So when are you going to get to the arguments related to same sex marriage?

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 2:17 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 1:55 AM

The welfare of children being raised by same sex couples is certainly one reason to legalize same sex marriage, and it’s one that gets trotted out because it’s a way of pulling at people’s heartstrings and winning their support but I personally don’t care for the linkage because I see it as unnecessarily complicating an issue where the right and legal thing to do is already clear. That’s just me though.

I admit I had never heard of Lopez before you mentioned him but if his objection is to child rearing by homosexuals then he’s way too late for that. Adoption by gay people is legal everywhere, and that aside it is still possible for homosexuals (lesbians in particular) to have children of their own; it’s going to be a very heavy lift to try to pass a law that forbids a lesbian from getting pregnant through however it is she may do it.

Regnerus may well be a nice man, but being a nice man doesn’t preclude him from doing a bad study. Spending a number of years and a lot of money doesn’t mean you’re going to do a good study. I’m all for questioning every consensus belief in any science, be it physical or social, and I’m all for tearing down any deeply-held, widely-accepted belief that doesn’t fit the facts. The thing is the Regnerus study, because it was so flawed, didn’t do that. If something scientifically sound that stood up to scrutiny did show up then that would be different but so far nothing has.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 2:33 AM

…ok!…I got overwhelmed…on this thread!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2014 at 2:36 AM

Supposition? Supposition? I spoke of biology. As in, the male organ fits into the female organ, and both are required to produce a child. Sperm from the male, egg from the female. Again, both required. A child has a father and a mother.

This is not just some minor social custom. This is how babies are made, families are formed, children are raised, and the next generation comes into being.

It’s pretty clear that the male and the female are designed to fit together. Literally made for each other, and I don’t just mean Joe-Biden-literally.

All depending on whether or not you think you need a child to be complete. It sounded to me like you were talking more about a state of mind than you were about birthing a child.

A man and a woman complete each other. You keep trying to dismiss it as just tradition, then I point out the biological basis, and you try to dismiss it as just birthing a baby.

Is a child required to complete a man and a woman? No, they are a complete set. Although it is still true that many married couples find having a baby or 5 makes their marriage even more complete.

Marriage is biological, mental, spiritual, civil, and social. It is both the most basic and the most profound social institution in existence, as well as the oldest.


It is not the government’s to play with and redefine at will.

And yet the progressives and the homosexual activists have a view of government so expansive that it even has the right to dictate to every citizen what is and is not marriage.

I am fundamentally and unalterably opposed to this tyrannical overreach of the government to foist an agenda favorable to a special interest group on every one of us. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, and so it is clearly left to the people rather than to the government.

Yes, epigenetics is the latest reed the homosexual community is hanging onto for a biological basis. It’s very much like the search for the missing link. Every time someone thinks they might have found a biological explanation for homosexuality, it gets tremendous play in the media. Then the claim either falls apart completely or ends up failing to prove what it was claimed to prove. But those who only pay attention to the headlines — which is most busy people — wind up believing after so many times that the biological basis is well-proven.

The epigenetics thing is similarly scanty evidence. It’s only convincing to those already convinced

.

So you’re flatly dismissing scientific evidence out of hand for no reason with no justification and that’s supposed to be persuasive. Got it.

There is no scientific evidence that epigenetics will prove homosexuality is biological. It’s just the Great White Hope of the future, since all other claimed scientific proofs turned out to be not proof at all.

Hogwash. The studies that claim that kids do just fine when raised by homosexuals are based on pitifully small self-selected samples.

You have a source for this information?

The Loren Marks analysis was devastating in showing just how insufficient the evidence quoted by the APA actually was.

I don’t know that the APA ever really had that much scientific credibility in the past, but since the gay mafia intimidated them into removing homosexuality as a listed disorder in 1973 by protesting every APA meeting and harassing individuals, then sending out fraudulent letters purporting to represent the leadership asking for the vote they wanted, they have effectively given up any resistance to the gay mafia. The Barbarians are now inside the gates and in control.

Those same people will then attack the Regnerus study.

Regnerus attacked his own study.

Hogwash. The gay mafia tried to shout him down. Then they pressured the university to do an investigation to settle allegations of fraud. When the investigation was complete, he was exonerated again. Any time any evidence comes out that does not advance the gay agenda, it is viciously attacked. When Loren Marks showed how the studies cited by the APA didn’t even meet its own standards, they attacked. When the Regenerus study found much more evidence that same-sex households DID have adverse effects on child-rearing, they attacked again. They didn’t have to. The study presented far more evidence than the relatively weak ones the APA was quoting up until then, but Regnerus was still limited by the amount of data he had available. They could have argued that the Regenerus study was inconclusive, and made a case against it. But they couldn’t let it stand at all. They had to go all out on the attack, and try to thoroughly discredit it.

As you’re tying to do again with the Allen study.

The Regnerus study was not perfect,

Understatement of the day, right here

.

but met a higher standard than the others.

You have a source for this information?

The Loren Marks analysis shows the lower standards that the APA cited in its propaganda. The Regnerus study, on the other hand, was much larger and more detailed. But the one that gets attacked is the one that didn’t come to the politically correct conclusions.

The attack against the Regnerus study was exactly what we’ve come to expect from anyone not toeing the party line on homosexuality, but it has also been defended as staunchly as it has been attacked.

The dismissal of the Regnerus study was based on specific scientific criticisms of his methodology. Science tries to check itself like that. Regnerus himself even admitted the study was flawed and there’s merit in the criticisms. Is Regnerus credible when he’s making his claims but not credible when he questions his own claims?

Regnerus tried to address as honestly as he could exactly what his study did show, and what it didn’t. While it showed much cause for skepticism for the breezily false claims of the APA before, and was often quoted by those opposed to SSM for that reason, it was not conclusive in itself.

And like a good scientist, he tried to avoid making bigger claims than what the study actually showed.

Unfortunately, people like you are unwilling to accept an honest assessment of evidence, and will only use it to attack his credibility by implying that he backtracked or apologized. But I saw the original conclusions of the study, and he was always straightforward about the limitations of the study.

It’s his honesty in accepting and not denying the limitations that gives credibility to the conclusions he is confident to make.

Now to the defense of Regnerus you linked.

First claim:

1) Media outlets have not properly critiqued the “small, nonrepresentative samples” used by previous studies that showed equal or more positive outcomes for children of same-sex parents vs. heterosexual parents. “By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions,” they wrote.

So if I turn up a study that had 200 participants you’ll accept it as scientifically valid? If you decide to answer this you had best choose your answer wisely.

Don’t even try it. Some of the studies Marks criticized had around that many, but they were not random or representative. Plus, many of them did not even have a control group for comparison at all, or used a control group of single mothers — demographically, far less successful in child-rearing than households with a father and mother.

Or did you fail to notice that there were 200 participants in the test group, and over 2,000 in the control group?

2) Those critical of Regnerus surveying children from same-sex relationships with high levels of instability “fail to appreciate … that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin.”

Yes, and that criticism is valid. Children need a stable environment growing up and if you select only the children who remember one parent at some point having a homosexual relationship you’re allowing children of divorce into the sample group and comparing them to children who did not experience divorce. Regnerus is stacking the deck and that’s why his conclusions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

If only you could compare those same-sex couples raising their own biological children to normal couples raising their own children….

But that’s impossible, of course, since same-sex couples do not have biological children. When a same-sex couple has children, it’s only by taking the biological children of someone else.

And that’s why the Regnerus study included children of divorce. Divorce was how these same-sex couples came to have children, since they couldn’t have them on their own.

So you try to blame Regnerus for something that is completely not his fault, and something he could not have eliminated anyway.

3) Another new study (published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family) – also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey – comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study.

Reference?

I think that’s the Allen study, although it could have been the Allen, Pkakuk, and Price analysis of the date from the Rosenfield study.

Is that the best that you’ve got?

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 12:33 AM

I believe that was the response of 18 social science professors. In fact, I believe I included a link to the report right underneath the quote from the report. Why yes, here it is.

I’m enjoying watching you try to dismiss every bit of evidence you don’t like.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 3:05 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 1:55 AM

The welfare of children being raised by same sex couples is certainly one reason to legalize same sex marriage, and it’s one that gets trotted out because it’s a way of pulling at people’s heartstrings and winning their support but I personally don’t care for the linkage because I see it as unnecessarily complicating an issue where the right and legal thing to do is already clear. That’s just me though.

I admit I had never heard of Lopez before you mentioned him but if his objection is to child rearing by homosexuals then he’s way too late for that. Adoption by gay people is legal everywhere, and that aside it is still possible for homosexuals (lesbians in particular) to have children of their own; it’s going to be a very heavy lift to try to pass a law that forbids a lesbian from getting pregnant through however it is she may do it.

Regnerus may well be a nice man, but being a nice man doesn’t preclude him from doing a bad study. Spending a number of years and a lot of money doesn’t mean you’re going to do a good study. I’m all for questioning every consensus belief in any science, be it physical or social, and I’m all for tearing down any deeply-held, widely-accepted belief that doesn’t fit the facts. The thing is the Regnerus study, because it was so flawed, didn’t do that. If something scientifically sound that stood up to scrutiny did show up then that would be different but so far nothing has.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 2:33 AM

If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.

If the Regnerus study is flawed, then the other studies cited by the APA are rotting refuse. You’re pointing out the mote in Regnerus’ eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

While Lopez defends the study by Regnerus, his own opposition to same-sex parenting is driven by human rights principles. Namely, children deserve to be raised by their mother and father. No matter how well meaning, homosexual parents can never be the mother and father that children need.

So after all this time of claiming there is no rational basis to be opposed to same-sex marriage, we find many, many reasons

1) Marriage involves a man and a woman
2) The man and woman in marriage have children
3) Children raised in a normal home have a biological mother and father
4) The coupling of a man and woman uses the actual biological sex organs for their proper purpose
5) Homosexuality is linked to disease and shortened life
6) Homosexuality is linked to suicide
7) Homosexuality is not an inherent or immutable characteristic, which destroys the whole argument that homosexuals are discriminated against unless they are able to marry someone of the same sex
8) The federal government was never given the role of deciding who has the right to get married
9) Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion is still in the Constitution. Unlike same sex marriage.

And many more, I’m sure. You may dispute some or all of these, but to dismiss them as simply not rational is, well, simply not rational
8)

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 3:18 AM

A man and a woman complete each other. You keep trying to dismiss it as just tradition, then I point out the biological basis, and you try to dismiss it as just birthing a baby.

Is a child required to complete a man and a woman? No, they are a complete set. Although it is still true that many married couples find having a baby or 5 makes their marriage even more complete.

Marriage is biological, mental, spiritual, civil, and social. It is both the most basic and the most profound social institution in existence, as well as the oldest.

It is not the government’s to play with and redefine at will.

And yet the progressives and the homosexual activists have a view of government so expansive that it even has the right to dictate to every citizen what is and is not marriage.

I am fundamentally and unalterably opposed to this tyrannical overreach of the government to foist an agenda favorable to a special interest group on every one of us. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, and so it is clearly left to the people rather than to the government.

Wow, a whole lot of just your personal opinion.

Letting gay people get married isn’t a redefinition; it’s barely even a blip on the radar. Letting people pick the person they love to get married to instead of having an arrangement about property? Now that was a redefinition of marriage. This issue? A giant nothingburger.

There is no scientific evidence that epigenetics will prove homosexuality is biological. It’s just the Great White Hope of the future, since all other claimed scientific proofs turned out to be not proof at all.

There’s no evidence that they will provide evidence that….

I got a huge laugh out of that, thank you.

The Loren Marks and the ASA…
.
.
.
The Barbarians are now inside the gates and in control.

Now I know we went through Loren Marks already so why are you still bringing it up? But if you want to bring up Mr.-I-Don’t-Read-The-Studies-and-Didn’t-Actually-Do-Research-On-Parenting-By-Gay-People then that’s your business.

You do remember when I pointed out that even if the criticisms Marks raises over the APA’s 2005 brief (I am NOT conceding those are valid criticisms, I’m just trying to help you out) those complaints have no bearing on a brief from the ASA put together in 2013 using research largely conducted after the APA brief that Marks was critical of was written; the ASA used mostly all new studies so you’ll have to refute those on your own.

Hogwash. The gay mafia tried to shout him down and conspiracy theory and…
.
.
.
As you’re tying to do again with the Allen study.

You just can’t let the Marks thing go, can you? I’m thinking about going in and proving that the Marks criticisms are spurious but I’m worried your head might explode.

But you got this wrong again. The whole problem with the Regnerus study was that it DIDN’T study same-sex households! It examined households were a child remembered after the fact that at some point one of their parents had had a same sex relationship. That includes same sex households but also heterosexual couples who divorce and then one partner enters a new homosexual relationship. If the McGreeveys divorced and the mom got full custody of the kids and dad was out of their lives then the Regnerus study, according to your blatantly incorrect interpretation, the kids would still have been raised in a same-sex household. That’s not the case, and that’s why everyone has taken Regnerus to task.

Honestly, one would think that if same-sex couples really were bad environments for kids to be raised in that the people opposed wouldn’t have to latch on to such clearly spurious studies. Are there really that few straws for you to grasp at?

The Loren Marks analysis shows the lower standards that the APA cited in its propaganda. The Regnerus study, on the other hand, was much larger and more detailed. But the one that gets attacked is the one that didn’t come to the politically correct conclusions.

The APA actually did comment on the Marks criticism in their brief in support of Windsor, all the while excoriating the Regnerus study. Of Marks they said “Marks opined that studies cited in an APA 2005 pamphlet (not a brief) allow no conclusions regarding lesbian and gay parenting. This wholesale rejection of an entire body of research fails to recognize the realities of the nature of scientific knowledge as discussed above. Moreover, Amici’s conclusions drawn from those earlier studies are borne out by the research subsequent to 2005.”

Regnerus tried to address as honestly as he could exactly what his study did show, and what it didn’t. While it showed much cause for skepticism for the breezily false claims of the APA before, and was often quoted by those opposed to SSM for that reason, it was not conclusive in itself.

And like a good scientist, he tried to avoid making bigger claims than what the study actually showed.

Unfortunately, people like you are unwilling to accept an honest assessment of evidence, and will only use it to attack his credibility by implying that he backtracked or apologized. But I saw the original conclusions of the study, and he was always straightforward about the limitations of the study.

It’s his honesty in accepting and not denying the limitations that gives credibility to the conclusions he is confident to make.

If you’re admitting the Regnerus study was inconclusive then you’re admitting the conclusions from that inconclusive study aren’t trustworthy. This is progress!

Don’t even try it. Some of the studies Marks criticized had around that many, but they were not random or representative. Plus, many of them did not even have a control group for comparison at all, or used a control group of single mothers — demographically, far less successful in child-rearing than households with a father and mother.

Or did you fail to notice that there were 200 participants in the test group, and over 2,000 in the control group?

I noticed, I was wondering if you knew what those meant.

First off it doesn’t matter how large or how small your study is if you ask the wrong questions. Regnerus asked kids after the fact if their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship, which of course requires a) the kid remembering correctly, and b) the kid being privy to the information in the first place. The flaws in that should be obvious.

If only you could compare those same-sex couples raising their own biological children to normal couples raising their own children….

But that’s impossible, of course, since same-sex couples do not have biological children. When a same-sex couple has children, it’s only by taking the biological children of someone else.

And that’s why the Regnerus study included children of divorce. Divorce was how these same-sex couples came to have children, since they couldn’t have them on their own.

So you try to blame Regnerus for something that is completely not his fault, and something he could not have eliminated anyway.

You clearly have not heard of surrogacy, or a simple adoption at birth. It’s a question of child rearing so we need to look at who raised and cared for the child, not where the sperm and the egg came from.

Your line “Divorce was how these same-sex couples came to have children, since they couldn’t have them on their own,” betrays your ignorance. If a married lesbian goes to a sperm bank, is impregnated and gives birth that child is NOT a child of divorce. I can’t believe you need this explained to you.

I think that’s the Allen study, although it could have been the Allen, Pkakuk, and Price analysis of the date from the Rosenfield study.

If you find it let me know. I’m always up for a good laugh.

I believe that was the response of 18 social science professors. In fact, I believe I included a link to the report right underneath the quote from the report. Why yes, here it is.

I’m enjoying watching you try to dismiss every bit of evidence you don’t like.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 3:05 AM

I saw it.

If you could find some evidence that wasn’t so easy to dismiss then maybe we could talk.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 4:28 AM

If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.

If the Regnerus study is flawed, then the other studies cited by the APA are rotting refuse. You’re pointing out the mote in Regnerus’ eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

I haven’t been talking about the APA! I just mentioned their response to Marks but other than that I’ve been focusing on the ASA and their more up-to-date research.

While Lopez defends the study by Regnerus, his own opposition to same-sex parenting is driven by human rights principles. Namely, children deserve to be raised by their mother and father. No matter how well meaning, homosexual parents can never be the mother and father that children need.

That’s your opinion, and one not supported by facts.

So after all this time of claiming there is no rational basis to be opposed to same-sex marriage, we find many, many reasons

I honestly haven’t read the list you’re about to write yet but I’m eager to.

1) Marriage involves a man and a woman

According to the arbitrary definition of 33 states.

2) The man and woman in marriage have children

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t, and sometimes they do even if they’re not married.

3) Children raised in a normal home have a biological mother and father

Depends on what you call “normal”.

4) The coupling of a man and woman uses the actual biological sex organs for their proper purpose

Your opinion. Some people would say their “proper purpose” is a means of self-gratification. That’s what people are doing when they use a contraceptive, right?

5) Homosexuality is linked to disease and shortened life

This is not intrinsic.

6) Homosexuality is linked to suicide

Again, not intrinsically

7) Homosexuality is not an inherent or immutable characteristic, which destroys the whole argument that homosexuals are discriminated against unless they are able to marry someone of the same sex

Your opinion and it’s wrong on all counts.

8) The federal government was never given the role of deciding who has the right to get married

They don’t set the policy but the policies the states set do have to adhere to the Constitution. We saw this when the feds struck down the interracial marriage prohibitions.

9) Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion is still in the Constitution. Unlike same sex marriage.

You don’t think the freedom of religion means you have carte blanche to do whatever you want so long as you claim it’s a religious practice, do you?

And many more, I’m sure. You may dispute some or all of these, but to dismiss them as simply not rational is, well, simply not rational

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 7, 2014 at 3:18 AM

Well that was interesting. Not surprising but interesting. Some of it was historically inaccurate, some of it didn’t deal with marriage, some of it was an appeal to tradition, some of it was just plain wrong, but none of it was a rational basis to discriminate against homosexual couples when it comes to access to the legal status of marriage.

alchemist19 on January 7, 2014 at 4:43 AM

According to the arbitrary definition of 33 states.

So when it comes to thousands of years of marriage being between a man and a woman, that’s “arbitrary,” but the history of polygamy not being “balanced” is a rational basis for the state to discriminate?

Consistency, thy name is someone else.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 7, 2014 at 5:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7