Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional.

[ToadBrother]

That doesn't make any sense. The definition of marriage didn't need to be changed to include cross-racial marriages. What part of man/woman don't you understand? Now you definitely need to change the definition of marriage to include man/man, or woman/woman.

Um, yes it did. Miscegenation was banned in a number of states and in places like South Africa. The definition of marriage was between like-races.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The fact that a qualifier is needed in front of marriage (same-sex) proves the point. If marriage didn't mean man/woman, one wouldn't need the same-sex part of the term.

This is an idiotic argument, like saying there's no such thing as African-American because you have to qualify with African.

[NA Carter]

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The fact that a qualifier is needed in front of marriage (same-sex) proves the point. If marriage didn't mean man/woman, one wouldn't need the same-sex part of the term.

The problem with your point here Shady, is that it does not take historical marriage into account. From a biblical perspective, polygamy was common, polyamory less so, and concubinage, especially amongst the wealthy, was the norm. Christian churches were not involved with marriage in any fashion prior to the 1600s. For the next 100 years, it was merely to give a blessing to the newlyweds and their family. In reality, there is no set definition of 'marriage', and there never was. Like any other social institution, marriage changes and evolves as societal views change and evolve.

Most of the taboos regarding marriage that many have grown up with in the last century, have nothing to do with faith, but with ancient tribal economics. 'Cheating' isn't immoral because the church said so. It was immoral because it was stealing a possession that belonged to your neighbour. In an age where women are no longer considered property (at least by the vast majority of our society), does this justification hold? At the very least these viewpoints need to be re-evaluated and re-formulated to fit the circumstances that our society lives within.

[Black Dog]

Uh..It's semen,Mr.Falange...Not seamen...

How's the film study going?

Got it in the can yet?

[Black Dog]

For now,I agree..

But I've heared and read some of the more militant proponents of this and they feel that all churches should be forced to do this.So much so that they have openly mused about Charter cases,human rights commissions,going after charitable status,etc...

Citation?

[punked]

Citation?

There are some people who do think that but just like how they could not force the LDS to have black priests in the 60s and 70s they can't force this on churches. There is already precedent.

[Smallc]

LOL

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip331913

John Stewart is the best...

[Mansour Mohammed Jaffa]

How vile a judge is this? Even the few things that the people of the west know are evil in the eyes of God and vote against, still does your legal system discard.

[Jack Weber]

I was talking about Mr.Falange's gay street porn film being in the can...

But he could use that for a commercial at the beginning....

[bloodyminded]

How vile a judge is this? Even the few things that the people of the west know are evil in the eyes of God and vote against, still does your legal system discard.

"The people of the west" know no such thing; the matter is fiercely contested.

And the opponents to same-sex marriage are losing.

[Shady]

And the opponents to same-sex marriage are losing.

Not really. Proponents of marriage win all of the time. Opponents of marriage need activist judges to overturn the votes of millions of people.

Speaking of activists judges, has anyone read the ruling? It cites virtually no law, just his personal opinions regarding children and parents. It's absurd.

"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted"

Link

It's one thing to apply and interpret the law to new legislation. But you can't just make things up and state them as facts in judicial opinions. Sorry gay judge from San Francisco. But a child having two paretns, man and woman, DOES IN FACT lead to children being well-adjusted more of the time.

[Black Dog]

Not really. Proponents of marriage win all of the time.

That's right: for example, the overturning of Prop 8 is a big victory for those in favour of marriage.

It's one thing to apply and interpret the law to new legislation. But you can't just make things up and state them as facts in judicial opinions. Sorry gay judge from San Francisco. But a child having two paretns, man and woman, DOES IN FACT lead to children being well-adjusted more of the time.

Prove it.

[ToadBrother]

It's one thing to apply and interpret the law to new legislation. But you can't just make things up and state them as facts in judicial opinions. Sorry gay judge from San Francisco. But a child having two paretns, man and woman, DOES IN FACT lead to children being well-adjusted more of the time.

You, of course, have some peer-reviewed citations to back that up, right?

[Guest TrueMetis]

It's one thing to apply and interpret the law to new legislation. But you can't just make things up and state them as facts in judicial opinions. Sorry gay judge from San Francisco. But a child having two paretns, man and woman, DOES IN FACT lead to children being well-adjusted more of the time.

lol.

[Shady]

You, of course, have some peer-reviewed citations to back that up, right?

Well, there is. But it's also simple logic. In general, a child is better off with a mother and father. It's not rocket science.

Does that mean every single-parent child or a child of two mothers or two fathers will turn out bad? Absolutely not.

[dre]

Well, there is. But it's also simple logic. In general, a child is better off with a mother and father. It's not rocket science.

Does that mean every single-parent child or a child of two mothers or two fathers will turn out bad? Absolutely not.

No sorry virtually every peer reviewed study ever done has found that the parents sexual alignment is not an important factor in the raising of children. Associations representing virtually every type of profession that deals with family and child issues have published positions stating sexual alignment is not relevant.

These include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, The US Bar, and many many more.

[BubberMiley]

Well, there is. But it's also simple logic. In general, a child is better off with a mother and father. It's not rocket science.

It's logical in the fact that the child is more likely to be scorned by people like you, but otherwise there is absolutely no peer-reviewed evidence to back up what you say.

Facts can be stubborn things sometimes.

Edited August 9, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Bonam]

Dude almost any psychologist will tell you that have both a mother and a father is important to a child's psychological wellbeing. A boy growing up with two female "parents" would have no male role model, no father figure, similarly a girl with two male "parents".

"Sexual alignment" may not be relevant (as dre claims), that is, your father could have some homosexual tendencies and you'd be ok, but if you have no father because both your parents are female, that is something different.

I think in this case the burden of proof is on people who think that the standard family structure (mother and father) is not needed to optimize the chances of raising a well adapted child, because this is a notion that has generally been accepted for a long time.

Now, personally, I'm all for letting gays marry if they want, and raise children if they want, but the claims being made here by certain proponents, that having both a mother and father is not beneficial, are ridiculous.

[dre]

Dude almost any psychologist will tell you that have both a mother and a father is important to a child's psychological wellbeing. A boy growing up with two female "parents" would have no male role model, no father figure, similarly a girl with two male "parents".

"Sexual alignment" may not be relevant (as dre claims), that is, your father could have some homosexual tendencies and you'd be ok, but if you have no father because both your parents are female, that is something different.

I think in this case the burden of proof is on people who think that the standard family structure (mother and father) is not needed to optimize the chances of raising a well adapted child, because this is a notion that has generally been accepted for a long time.

Now, personally, I'm all for letting gays marry if they want, and raise children if they want, but the claims being made here by certain proponents, that having both a mother and father is not beneficial, are ridiculous.

Not according to the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, the US Bar, and all the studies that have compared outcomes between SS and OS parents.

[BubberMiley]

Now, personally, I'm all for letting gays marry if they want, and raise children if they want, but the claims being made here by certain proponents, that having both a mother and father is not beneficial, are ridiculous.

Studies will show it's beneficial for a child to have two parents, but that's largely because the hefty burden of being a single parent makes it difficult to provide quality parenting time. But no studies indicate better results because of the gender of the parents.

[Bonam]

Studies will show it's beneficial for a child to have two parents, but that's largely because the hefty burden of being a single parent makes it difficult to provide quality parenting time. But no studies indicate better results because of the gender of the parents.

Studies that fail to show that it is beneficial, at least to some small extent, and all other things being equal, for a young boy to have a father or for a young girl to have a mother (and the other way around as well), are very likely flawed studies in my book. Unless they've sampled literally millions of people in both the "SS" and "OS" categories and followed the kids for their entire young and adult lives, and meticulously compared them on every factor that could possibly be of relevance, I would not be inclined to believe it. Additionally, the study would have to be carried out by a research group completely unaffiliated with interests, lobbies, or funding sources that have ever claimed any stance on the issue.

Perhaps that is too high of a standard for me to set, but, that's what it'd take for me to find such a study convincing. I also think that it would probably take at least that, and probably even more, to convince many other "traditionalists", who, like Shady, hold the view that "In general, a child is better off with a mother and father".

On the whole, as a physicist and engineer, I view the results of studies coming out of the "social sciences" with some inherent skepticism. The field of social science is infamously prone to errors, sampling problems, omissions, and influence due to the researcher's biases that are all much reduced in "harder" sciences.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

On the whole, as a physicist and engineer, I view the results of studies coming out of the "social sciences" with some inherent skepticism.

As someone who has been involved in social science, I find it's often the case that physicists and engineers make poor judges in such matters. Leave social science to social scientists...and I'm sure they won't try to do your job either.

[Bonam]

As someone who has been involved in social science, I find it's often the case that physicists and engineers make poor judges in such matters. Leave social science to social scientists...and I'm sure they won't try to do your job either.

Social scientists and the results of their studies and findings can affect all of society, the decisions taken by schools, politicians, etc. Every interested individual has every right to examine these studies for themselves. Additionally, because social science is a field in its infancy, it is easy for a moderately educated person to read such a study and understand it at least on a rudimentary level, unlike fields which have much more developed jargon and concepts. A typical non-physicist trying to read a physics paper would be hopelessly lost within the first few sentences; a typical non-social-scientist reading a social science study could probably get through the whole thing and understand at least the main points.

Do you disagree with my assessment that social science is inherently prone to greater sampling errors, biases, omissions, and other important scientific problems, as compared to, for example, physics or chemistry?

And no, your overly defensive reaction will not stop me from being actively interested in the results of social science studies and the problems associated with such studies.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Additionally, because social science is a field in its infancy,

What? What? Do you realize the wide range of fields that are classified as social science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

Education, economics, history, geography, psychology...etc, etc.

Do you disagree with my assessment that social science is inherently prone to greater sampling errors, biases, omissions, and other important scientific problems, as compared to, for example, physics or chemistry?

I don't disagree, but I doubt you could ever get to the same level with a social science, given the nature of what's being discussed. Humans aren't set boxes, and so the science to study them and the social in which they live can't be either.

And no, your overly defensive reaction will not stop me from being actively interested in the results of social science studies and the problems associated with such studies.

An overly condescending post will get and overly defensive reaction. You can be interested in anything you want, just don't pretend that you know as much about it as an actual social scientist (which I am not, but which my work depends on, along with hard science).

Edited August 10, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

What? What? Do you realize the wide range of fields that are classified as social science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

Education, economics, history, geography, psychology...etc, etc.

Yes, and the actual "science" of most of these fields is all in its infancy, if you can even call some of these "science". Economics, look at the complete failure of mainstream economic theories to make any meaningful predictions about major economic phenomena (a critical test of any theory). Psychology? Barely out of the cradle. History? Not even a science, but if you want to call it one, hardly beyond the classification stage. Etc.

I don't disagree, but I doubt you could ever get to the same level with a social science, given the nature of what's being discussed. Humans aren't set boxes, and so the science to study them and the social in which they live can't be either.

Exactly the problem, and why the results of social studies must be treated with extra care.

An overly condescending post will get and overly defensive reaction. You can be interested in anything you want, just don't pretend that you know as much about it as an actual social scientist (which I am not).

I know enough to take the "conclusions" paragraph of your typical social science study, or more especially its summary in a news article, with not just a grain but a whole fistful of salt.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Bonam

[punked]

*breaking news*

Gay Judge from San Francisco rules in favour of so-called gay marriage.

Even the funny writers think Shady is silly