Gilda

Uh, no. It's interesting where you end the quote there. What I actually said was

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side"

Notice the "from my side" part. Leaving that out changes the meaning drastically.

Your claim was that the research I cite is "largely in question" and "they are under heavy fire from both sides". This isn't so. One critic was cited from "my side", which does not equate to the studies being "largely in question" or "under heavy fire" from "my side".

My side consists of pretty much every mainstream medical and psychological organization in the United States, and you can see their positions cited above. Some cite the studies, some have null positions that basically say "no harm has been shown".

That's not a study, it's a position paper co-authored by members of Marriagewatch, an organization whose purpose is attacking same sex marriage, written for the purpose of attacking generally accepted research because it is hurting their cause, and published by that organization.

It says nothing to indicate that homosexual parents harm their children.

And there's the one critic that is nominally on "my side" who questions the validity of the studies. This is hardly a justification for your hyperbole in claiming that they're "largely in question" or "under heavy fire".

Note, however, she makes no claim that homosexuals in any way harm their children, and cites no studies in favor of that conclusion. This is likely because every study published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal concludes that there is no harm.

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than what? Better than which children?

Of course opponents attack them. That's what makes them opponents. That's not an argument, that's a definition.

But the proponents? The concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that there is no evidence to support the idea that children of homosexuals are harmed by being raised by homosexuals.

You've found one pro-gay marriage critic of the research, and she concludes that the studies are flawed, not that homosexuals are harmed.

You have two rhetorical fallacies here, two premises and circular reasoning or begging the question.

First, that's really two separate premises--A. Marriage is between a man and a womand and B. marriage is for the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to rear children.

Second you conclude that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. You've used your conclusion as a premise in your argument, which renders it invalid.

However, let's look at those two premises for a second. Let's start with B. If marriage does in fact provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, wouldn't this be true also of the children of homosexual couples? Now let's look at premise A. Extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would not in anyway change this. Marriage would still be between a man and a woman. It would also be between a man and a man and a woman and woman.

Even if we accept this argument at face value, it does not preclude extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, because that purpose--providing a man and a woman with a stable environment in which to rear children--would still exist unchanged. A man and a woman could still get married, have and rear children.

Your claim there is both fallacious and doesn't even support your conclusion.

I cite them as evidence that children of homosexuals are not harmed by being raised by homosexuals. There's little evidence regarding transsexuals, but what little there is doesn't point to any harm there, either, but since most transsexuals are straight, that's really a tangent.

Yeah, that's why I said anecdotal, sample size too small, possible other explanations, etc. I wasn't proposing anything with that, just sharing some interesting new information.

Yeah, that was poorly worded, let me rephrase.

I was posting links that give evidence in support of the position that homosexuals do no harm. My point was that even if do manage to disprove those studies, which has not been done, you're not showing harm of any kind. Until you can show harm caused by homosexual parents, your argument is not a valid one for denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Nor is it even one then.

I apologize for my mistatement. You do realize that this argument is a tautology, and thus invalid, do you not?

Yeah, I realize that's the position. I'm not seeking to get any church other than the one of which I am a member to recognize my marriage, which is between me, my wife, and God.

Gilda