Michael Sam - NFL's first openly gay prospect

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

That's not really the point. The point is that studies have shown that the optimal household structure (both a father and a mother) comes through heterosexual marriage.

Do you have a link, I thought optimal household had a lot more to do with socio-economics than with the mother/father aspect, but I'm open to being wrong. If you're just saying mother/father households produce more healthy, intelligent children, then that's likely due to socio-economic factors than the mother/father aspect from what I've seen.

[Schlich]

Again society cannot exist without some sort of man/woman connection. Marriage simply encourages that, I think.

Heterosexual couples don't really need any encouragement. Homosexual couples need help. The Christian thing to do here is help the oppressed class. End of story.

[Jocephus]

Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

I actually don't.

Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.

"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).

thats a terrible argument.

What do you mean? They don't have the same rights that I have?

maybe i'm misunderstanding you. i keep re-reading it.

the way i read it was that you claim this isn't about equal rights. since you are straight, there isn't a law written that says you can marry a man. (but thats redundant since a self identified heterosexual man would have no reason to marry a man.) but dan savage, because he is biologically attracted to men, has a right that you don't?

[Socnorb11]

Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

I actually don't.

Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.

"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).

thats a terrible argument.

What do you mean? They don't have the same rights that I have?

maybe i'm misunderstanding you. i keep re-reading it.

the way i read it was that you claim this isn't about equal rights. since you are straight, there isn't a law written that says you can marry a man. (but thats redundant since a self identified heterosexual man would have no reason to marry a man.) but dan savage, because he is biologically attracted to men, has a right that you don't?

No, we both have the exact same rights.

[ghostrunner]

Soc, do you think people choose to be gay?

I actually don't.

Then why would you ever support anything that denies them the same rights as you? That's no different than supporting different rules for black people, or autistic people, or people who were born more athletic than you, etc etc.

"Equal rights" aren't an issue here. I am straight, and I don't have a right to marry someone of the same sex, either. Dan Savage is gay, and he has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I have (in fact, he did just that).

Ye gods, Socnorb.

[Socnorb11]

That's not really the point. The point is that studies have shown that the optimal household structure (both a father and a mother) comes through heterosexual marriage.

Do you have a link, I thought optimal household had a lot more to do with socio-economics than with the mother/father aspect, but I'm open to being wrong. If you're just saying mother/father households produce more healthy, intelligent children, then that's likely due to socio-economic factors than the mother/father aspect from what I've seen.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

[Arthur Dent]

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

That headline is hilarious.

[Jocephus]

[Socnorb11]

I don't have access to speakers. Can you summarize?

[Jocephus]

Franken Takes Down Anti-Gay Witness For Mischaracterizing Study


i dont claim to be a scholar but this is fascinating to me that this could be considered legitimate research.

Limitations of the Study

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting."

(fyi the italic is how the article is written)

"the traditional caveat". i love how it says that, like a disclaimer or legal obligation. but then the next paragraph just bull [expletive] its way thru that and says "but this is actually what does it"