Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Not to repeat myself, but if you use flawed data and use it to draw a conclusion, then your conclusion is also flawed.
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.
That one critic isn't "Nominally on your side". That one critic is a major proponent of gay marriage as an institution.
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.
|
I think your one critic is more than overbalanced by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians,
Quote:
|
Better than the children without. I thought I stated that already?
|
It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than children with homosexual parents? Of course you're not going to say that because there's no evidence of such. As that is the subject of this debate, your claim is meaningless.
Quote:
|
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.
|
They're disputed sure.
Everything is disputed. That doesn't change that the evidence supports the idea that homosexual parents do their children no harm, and that the mainstream medical and psychological organizations in the United States accept this conclusion.
Quote:
|
1.) You can't disprove the notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman
|
I wouldn't want to do that. Of course marriage is between a man and a woman. In some countries, it's also between two women and between two men, as it is n Massachusetts. In many churches, it is also between two or two women.
The question under debate here is whether civil marriage should be between same sex couples in addition to opposite sex couples.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Those are correlational studies comparing children raised in intact families to those raised by single parents, and do not indicate causation. There are a number of factors not controlled for that have a big influence, chiefly poverty. However, none of those studies control for orientation or compare children of heterosexuals to those of homosexuals, so they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Also, I haven't been disputing that that is one of the functions of marriage. It is not, however the sole one, and is not a requirement, and that argument works in favor of gay marriage, not against it. If marriage is beneficial to children, then let's extend that same benefit to the children being raised by homosexual couples as well.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That makes no sense. In the second description, marriage is, by your own words, still between a man and a woman. It just includes other groups as well.
Gilda