Gay Marriage Legalized in Iowa

[Scarred DNA]

Only one of those links actually cites anything that a scientific person could honestly call "research" and even that one admits to being limited and is vague, not providing any actual numbers or comparisons due to the small study sample. All the rest is a few examples, some opinion polls, statistics about adoption overall and more of the "no evidence that they're bad" arguments which I already stated.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love for you to dig up something that actually supports the line I quoted from your post. And so far it's promising. But it's just not there. Quite frankly I don't mind it on a personal level and I would love to see some solutions for our adoption crisis put into place, like expanding the number of qualified adoptive households.

Not trying to be funny, but did you read all the material found in those links? The second to last alone has 4 pages of references. The last has 2.5 pages. You went through all those and found none of them credible?

What you're asking for, I can't give. Access to those journals and studies is not free, if they're even available on the internet in the first place. My point was that the research is there, and it's consistently favoring SS couples.

I guess what I find credible and what you find credible are two completely different things. I think we'd all like to have a look at the parameters set for the research that's out there, but having free online access to that is just not realistic at this point.

Your standards are apparently much higher than my own, so I'm not sure that anything I link to is going to measure up anyway. I could see if it was maybe one study that everyone was paraphrasing - then there's room for error. But there are multiple studies and conclusions from reputable researchers being referenced, and that's good enough for me.

Maybe I'll go through and search for all those references myself at some point, but not at the moment. I did find this (fixed), but it's still not a direct case study.

If I come across something, I'll share it with you.

P. S. I know this is a stupid question, but I have to ask it just to make sure. You know you're supposed to read the whole report, and not just the abstract . . . right?

[Diocletian]

And by the way, is it only gay people or also lesbians aloud to marry?

Ah....when I read this my fingers couldn't type out of lulz.

Often when speaking of gay you have the assumption of lesbians included.

[Cless Alvein]

Not trying to be funny, but did you read all the material found in those links? The second to last alone has 4 pages of references. The last has 2.5 pages. You went through all those and found none of them credible?

P. S. I know this is a stupid question, but I have to ask it just to make sure. You know you're supposed to read the whole report, and not just the abstract . . . right?

Yes. I read every page you linked and I thought I made enough references back to the content to prove it. The report on the second to last page, your best and most persuasive reference, contains this caveat:

"There are, however, some limitations in the general area of research on gay and lesbian parenting. First, the research field is still quite new, and has focused on a relatively limited group of individuals. For example, most research has studied lesbians and gays who became parents in the context of previous heterosexual relationships, with only a few studies of homosexual parenthood in those identified as lesbian or gay prior to the child’s conception, and no empirical studies of lesbian and gay adoptive parenthood. Furthermore, the vast majority of research has focused on lesbian-headed households, as well as on homosexuals who are Caucasian, relatively affluent and living in major metropolitan areas. In addition, most studies have used relatively small, “convenience” samples rather than sampling randomly from gay and lesbian parent populations, and have not followed the research participants longitudinally. Moreover, the research has primarily explored questions related to family structure – i.e., comparing groups of children raised in heterosexual versus homosexual households on measures of psychological adjustment – rather than family process."

So this study claims to find no link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, lack of parenting skill or raising children with gender identity problems; but then turns around and admits to using a biased, selected sample of mostly wealthy, white lesbians raising children from previous heterosexual relationships in major metropolitan areas.

What you're asking for, I can't give.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. And it's not because "my standards are too high."

[Datenshi]

Although, I could half-heartedly argue that even if there was conclusive evidence that same-sex marriages have a tendency to exert a negative influence on children, that doesn't necesssarily have to be the decisive reason that same-sex marriages should be disallowed altogeter.

It's been proven time and time again with overwhelming evidence that being raised in a divorced family has a negative influence on children, but we don't ban divorces; because we recognize the right of the parent, as a human being foremost, to choose not to live with a partner if a person decides that he or she doesn't love him or her anymore.

Why should it be any different for the rights of a couple that wants to be together?

Damn, I'm sure there's a flaw somewhere in that argument...

[wowzabunny]

Well to all you people there who are bombing me with explanations about homo is noraml i respect that and I DONT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST HOMOS. maybe a little but anyway. now go frolick in your happy bunny gardens

[Deathwishsa]

GAY IS SUPER BAD (unless it girls )

END IT

[Memento Mori]

GAY IS SUPER BAD (unless it girls )

END IT

Are you saying end gays? How can you stop two people from loving each other?

Or are you saying end the argument? Because that's up for the moderators to decide, not you.

[Señor Nobody]

GAY IS SUPER BAD (unless it girls )

A-are you serious? Did you just say gays are 'super bad'? Do you actually mean that? If so, ...well damn.

[NorthOfTime]

GAY IS SUPER BAD (unless it girls )

END IT

Your super bad, lets end you!

[Standartenführer]

How come when I say something it's totally ignored and everyone else gets flamed.

IMHO you are all acting like a bunch of Christians =3
You take even the slightest joke such as Dethwishas and take it far too seriously. So I will restate my 2 main points:

1)What if I said 'Blacks can't marry, it just ain't right' or justified it with whatever any of you said.

2)Why do we care about something so small? Why not use your time and energy to go get a cure for cancer, or stop the tabaco companies. World hunger? War? You choose to yell at eachother over such a small thing as marriage.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

How come when I say something it's totally ignored and everyone else gets flamed.

IMHO you are all acting like a bunch of Christians =3
You take even the slightest joke such as Dethwishas and take it far too seriously.

PROTIP: Nobody flamed him, and nobody took his statement 100% seriously. Learn 2 read.

Also, it isn't a joke if it isn't funny.

[Scarred DNA]

Yes. I read every page you linked and I thought I made enough references back to the content to prove it. The report on the second to last page, your best and most persuasive reference, contains this caveat:

"There are, however, some limitations in the general area of research on gay and lesbian parenting. First, the research field is still quite new, and has focused on a relatively limited group of individuals. For example, most research has studied lesbians and gays who became parents in the context of previous heterosexual relationships, with only a few studies of homosexual parenthood in those identified as lesbian or gay prior to the child’s conception, and no empirical studies of lesbian and gay adoptive parenthood. Furthermore, the vast majority of research has focused on lesbian-headed households, as well as on homosexuals who are Caucasian, relatively affluent and living in major metropolitan areas. In addition, most studies have used relatively small, “convenience” samples rather than sampling randomly from gay and lesbian parent populations, and have not followed the research participants longitudinally. Moreover, the research has primarily explored questions related to family structure – i.e., comparing groups of children raised in heterosexual versus homosexual households on measures of psychological adjustment – rather than family process."

So this study claims to find no link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, lack of parenting skill or raising children with gender identity problems; but then turns around and admits to using a biased, selected sample of mostly wealthy, white lesbians raising children from previous heterosexual relationships in major metropolitan areas.



That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. And it's not because "my standards are too high."

While I appreciate the expectation that I can provide links to all research conducted, I don't think I'll be able to track down all of them. And, just because I lack that ability does not mean they don't exist.

Also, it should be noted that a lot of what I have posted and will post are reviews and/or meta-analysis of the research conducted. And as the research is consistent in its findings, so too are the reviews. Further, because of the nature of these publications - it's the references you should pay close attention to.

Is some of the research limited? Sure. That is, unfortunately, a characteristic of early research in the social sciences. There have been, however, numerous other studies and research conducted that strive to correct the pitfalls often encountered when attempting to pick apart an invisible community within our society. Still, they do not invalidate the early research, but augment it.

As an aside - I agree with you regarding some of the bias found in the sample pertaining to white individuals. However, in regards to the SES of the sample - I agree that there should be some limitation here as to avoid overlapping of the distress caused by social problems. How would one be able to tell, for example, if it's the sexuality of the parents that have caused social maladjustment, or their low SES? As we know, it's more often the poor economic circumstances that can affect already disadvantaged children the most.

And adding that kind of stress to a most likely already severely disenfranchised family is going to result in one big tangle of stressors. I see no way to separate the causes from one another when evaluating the social factors involved.

Anyway, you say "one way or the other", but I don't see the balance this implies. The scale is definitely tipping to one side. This is my point.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting.pdf

http://www.familieslg.org/pdf%20docu...LEY%201995.pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/...Lit-Review.pdf

http://www.education.equalityarizona...0Parenting.pdf

http://www.publichealthactivism.com/...gay_family.pdf Indirectly relevant, but a very interesting read nonetheless.

It's been proven time and time again with overwhelming evidence that being raised in a divorced family has a negative influence on children, but we don't ban divorces; because we recognize the right of the parent, as a human being foremost, to choose not to live with a partner if a person decides that he or she doesn't love him or her anymore.

It's not so much the absence of the other parent that causes severe psychological distress - it's the conflict between the parents before the divorce, during the divorce, and after the divorce. Children whose parents divorce but remain civil and agreeable with each other fare remarkably well.

No, we shouldn't ban divorce. We should ban retarded parents that get so caught up in their own marital problems that they forget how to behave when dealing with their children.

[Cless Alvein]

Although, I could half-heartedly argue that even if there was conclusive evidence that same-sex marriages have a tendency to exert a negative influence on children, that doesn't necesssarily have to be the decisive reason that same-sex marriages should be disallowed altogeter.

Two separate conversations. I already stated that I support equal rights and homosexual unions before addressing the adoption issue as a completely new topic.

However, in regards to the SES of the sample - I agree that there should be some limitation here as to avoid overlapping of the distress caused by social problems. How would one be able to tell, for example, if it's the sexuality of the parents that have caused social maladjustment, or their low SES? As we know, it's more often the poor economic circumstances that can affect already disadvantaged children the most.

Oh, I don't disagree. The information available so far does make a convincing argument to allow adoption by rich, white homosexual couples. As long as you're willing to stop there I suppose we're good to go.

[wolfgirl90]

2)Why do we care about something so small? Why not use your time and energy to go get a cure for cancer, or stop the tabaco companies. World hunger? War? You choose to yell at eachother over such a small thing as marriage.

What we are talking about is a civil rights issue. Gays can not get married because of the simple fact that they are gay, not because of the color of their skin, their religion or whatever (as if that would be better), but their sexual orientation. And the only real reason for this is because of people who are ignorant. We are dealing with this present problem, one that really can not be ignored.

[Kishiro]

People have kids without being married all the time. The whole "Marriage is the means through which child birth is conveyed" argument is lame and full of holes.

Marriage is about two people uniting and about being love, nothing more. It has nothing to do with genetics, or religion. It's not even a sacrament mentioned in The Bible. Then again it's not a Christian concept.

Civil Rights, Liberties, and Equality for all. If homosexuals want to be just as miserable as all the heterosexual people who are married and go through the ups and downs and ins and outs, and get a tax break while their at it, then let them.

All who oppose, evolve.

[Kissed by Obito]

Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .

Stating homosexuality does not occur in animals can not be backed up by anything but opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals While I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion; you can't expect to post your opinion and not have someone take the other side. I as a Christian, believe God does not make mistakes. There is documented evidence of homosexuality in non human animals. Also, I have friends who are homosexuals and have been all their lives. No one recruited them, they did not wake up one morning and decide to be gay. It's just the way they were born. If I were to agree that homosexuality is wrong then I would have to say that God made a mistake when he made these people. I have always been taught that you get married because you want to spend the rest of your life with a person. Traditionally it's just been assumed that it's to have a family and children. I am a heterosexual female. I plan to get married at some time in my life, and I do not plan to have children. According to your theory of marriage I should not be getting married because I don't plan on having children.

[Scarred DNA]

Oh, I don't disagree. The information available so far does make a convincing argument to allow adoption by rich, white homosexual couples. As long as you're willing to stop there I suppose we're good to go.

I guess I can be happy with that. For now. I'll bring it up again in 5 years or so.

[Grim Scythe]

Hey, why discuss it further?, it's probably been stated many times already and Kishiro just summed it up perfectly.

[Memento Mori]

How come when I say something it's totally ignored and everyone else gets flamed.

IMHO you are all acting like a bunch of Christians =3
You take even the slightest joke such as Dethwishas and take it far too seriously. So I will restate my 2 main points:

1)What if I said 'Blacks can't marry, it just ain't right' or justified it with whatever any of you said.

2)Why do we care about something so small? Why not use your time and energy to go get a cure for cancer, or stop the tabaco companies. World hunger? War? You choose to yell at eachother over such a small thing as marriage.

While a good number of Christians are bigoted and discriminate against gays, saying we're acting like a bunch of Christians is just as offensive as saying we're acting like a bunch of gays in the sense that it's not cool to use it as an insult.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

While a good number of Christians are bigoted and discriminate against gays, saying we're acting like a bunch of Christians is just as offensive as saying we're acting like a bunch of gays in the sense that it's not cool to use it as an insult.

I assume that he meant the word Zealot and had not the vocabulary to use it. Which is still stupid, but anyway.

[FLASH-X]

. i just . by the way i just dont support gay marriages ,or gays or homosexuals they are just against nature. call me stone age freak but thats how i think, a guy is not meant to be with a guy or a gal is not ment to be with gal, god made adam and eve not adam and adam, its just agianst nature, i think homosexuality is just a mental phenomena ,now dont think that i think gay people r not human or i hate them vbut they sure need help.

[Yugure's Goddess]

You have to be kidding me...

Ok, probably not my best-supported claim, but I still think that every human, at least a little bit, experiences homosexual urges from time to time, or at the very least some curiosity. Not to mention that I very firmly believe that 99% of homophobes are homosexuals afraid of their true desires. Maybe I should have said that, instead. I mean, I hear all the time, in this town of bigoted Christians about the boy's locker room and stuff. They tackle each other, grab each other's behinds, pop each other with towels (and so on and so forth). I suppose it's my natural reaction to assume that they're homophobes (and most of them are, here) and are releasing this energy that they have bottled up for so long in a way that is deemed more acceptable.

The purpose of genetic information is to copy itself and pass on to the next generation so that it can continue to survive. If being homosexual is connected to a gene, and that genetic information gives the carrier a predisposition to not mate in such a way that will pass on their genetic information, wouldn't you say that IS a little unnatural?

More accurately, one could argue that it is "natural" but in the same way that Down Syndrome, Color Blindness or being born with six fingers on one hand is "natural".

I might agree with what you're saying if you didn't make it sound so much like you were saying that it was a genetic defect. It may be, but I don't see it as affecting ANYONE in a particularly negative way (excluding the social and political bull crap). Even if it is a deviation, the deviation is not exclusive to any one group or species and it has grown to encompass many many people and animals.

And I still give that science will soon be able to make it possible for humans to reproduce regardless of gender of parents, so it's not far from barely mattering at all.

PLUS: The male chromosome is one of the weakest in the human genetic coding, and is (albeit EXTREMELY slowly) deteriorating and will one day disappear from human genetics completely. So, I would argue that homosexuality could be a genetic deviation, causing some to adapt to this impending change. Besides, I don't think genetic abnormalities are merely accidents or these horrible occurrences. These changes (correct me if I'm wrong) come from mother nature tinkering with and trying to change something, to make it stronger or smarter. Genetic abnormalities are among the first steps to adaptations, and some scientists speculate that this is why down syndrome occurs. Something very strange has happened, and, in desperation to correct this, the newly forming cells create a 47th chromosome. This isn't the best defense, I know, because the Y chromosome is going to take about at least another 125,000 years before it dies out completely, but I still say it's a possibility.

I definitely don't think, though, that the homosexuality is unnatural, therefore wrong argument holds ground, even if everything I say is false and homosexuality is a dangerous and bad genetic deviation. I still say that we watch TV too, which is MONSTROUSLY unnatural in comparison.

@ FLASH-X: Get yourself some learning and try again.

love
dani
dude

[FLASH-X]

i agree about the tv part but u see changing gender scientifically or making peaple capable having babies without ne sex is not the answer ,as i said before its against nature, and what ever science may do it ,should never cross path with nature, thats just playing dangerous and for the homo-society its just that they need help from medical research and society, i just dont support there true existence, i just think hey are sick people .

[Yugure's Goddess]

i agree about the tv part but u see changing gender scientifically or making peaple capable having babies without ne sex is not the answer ,as i said before its against nature, and what ever science may do it ,should never cross path with nature, thats just playing dangerous and for the homo-society its just that they need help from medical research and society, i just dont support there true existence, i just think hey are sick people .

I'm trying my hardest not to flame you, but you're really coming across as very ignorant.

Wait wait, before I get too ahead of myself, what do you mean by sick? Do you say they are mentally ill? Psychologically unstable? Or have some kind of bacterium or virus? (Hint: regardless of your answer, chances are, you're wrong.)

love
dani
dude

[Ollie]

i agree about the tv part but u see changing gender scientifically or making peaple capable having babies without ne sex is not the answer ,as i said before its against nature, and what ever science may do it ,should never cross path with nature, thats just playing dangerous and for the homo-society its just that they need help from medical research and society, i just dont support there true existence, i just think hey are sick people .

In that case, you must really really hate straight couples who have to get in vitro fertilization and test tube babies, since that crap ain't natural either. Amirite?