Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
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".
|
Not to repeat myself, but if you use flawed data and use it to draw a conclusion, then your conclusion is also flawed.
Quote:
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.
|
I never said it was a study on whether or not homosexual marriages harm children or not, but rather a paper on the flaws on the research conducted thus far. It doesn't draw the conclusion as to whether homosexual marriages harm children or not, as that's not the point of the paper. I expected you to realize that.
Quote:
|
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".
|
That one critic isn't "Nominally on your side". That one critic is a major proponent of gay marriage as an institution.
[QUOTE]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.[QUOTE]
And, once again, I never stated that she made that claim. What I stated was that she's opposed to the various studies which have been conducted, because they're all biased and flawed, a view hard to dismiss.
Quote:
|
It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than what? Better than which children?
|
Better than the children without. I thought I stated that already?
Quote:
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.
|
No where did I state that this was my aim. I was simply showing that the studies which you so readily point out are disputed, because they contain empirical flaws.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Here's your problems:
1.) You can't disprove the notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman and
2.) You can't disprove the fact that a marriage isn't for providing a stable environment in which to raise children, since numerous studies which have been conducted which prove that children raised in the confines are marriage typically do better than those who aren't.
Quote:
|
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?
|
It would, if not for premise #1.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Therefore, marriage is no longer between a man and woman, but between a man and a woman, a man and a man and/or a woman and a woman.
Quote:
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.
|
Now you're assuming that premise #1 is independent of premise #2, which is incorrect. I oppose gay marriage on both premises-- Not just one.