Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No, I didn't say that. I said all things being equal, the sex of the parent doesn't matter as long as it is a stable, loving two parent household. I never said BETTER.
Calm down NP. All is well.
Sorry no man can take the place of the birth mother and do a good of a job as she can.......its just not possible.................
They are not my second rate civil unions, they are what most gays want and "rabble rousing feel good liberals like you and black dog" stir the pot pot.........we saw he same **** after the Vietnam war when rabble rousers like you spit and cussed out the returning troops..........
Nice stretch....not even slightly related (and by the way...you spit on the troops every day more than I ever would by willy-nilly giving up the freedoms that they are fighting and dying for).
If you think I am a neocon so be it.......again I am so very proud of my neo conservatism...............
If being a neo con means your for small government, less taxes, anti abortion, anti gay marraige, etc....... then I proudly plead guilty................
Being 'neo' doesn't really mean that. Neoconservatives are for productive government, small or somewhat big. The social issues are vague as well, depending upon who you ask. If it were not for the defense of modernity's welfare liberalism, there would have been little reason to identify it as a 'neo' prefix.
He wants to put a label on m well I don't really care because I know what I am better then he ever will............
My summary is entirely consistent with what she says:If you read the entire article, you would notice that the authors consistently make statements assertaining that research demonstrates that children reared from same sex couples do as well as those from opposite sex couples. This particular study has been taken out of context so many times that Judith Stacey herself has had to denounce the critics and state, clearly what I just said above:
Taylor said:[The authors] challenge "no-difference" claims in the literature (claiming the differences are positive, you may or may not agree).
My point was that while many researchers claim there is "no difference" - other researchers rexamining the data may disagree. In this instance, the authors detail several differences that they interpret in a positive light.Stacey said:Stacey concluded that although there can be slight variations, even advantages, to the development of children of same-sex parents, these were “differences, not deficiencies.”
I left the interpretation up to the reader, who can read about the differences themselves and interpret as they wish (positive/negative/neutral). In the article it's true that Stacey interprets many of these as benefits, not mere differences.As Stacey herself said, there are differences in same sex families. These are not necessarily deficiencies or benefits; just difference.
I acknowledged that there were many potential interpretations, and this is certainly one of those.One of the studies that I often quote... and I have to find the one I am referring, explains this quite well. Same sex families, because of their very nature, tend to be more open about sexuality issues. This is a response to explaining the parental structure to the children, since it is not the average family structure. What researchers have found is that this does NOT create an increase in gay sexual orientation. What it DOES do, is it creates a more open-minded perception of sexuality in these children.
The point I took issue with was that there was no research disputing this finding, which was false. The Stacey article does just that. They looked at two studies, one specifically examining "sexual orientation," the other assessing whether the child has had one or more same-sex relationships (not encounters).the point that I stated is still accurate: there's no correlation between children of same sex couples being more likely to become gay
I acknowledged that there were many potential interpretations, and this is certainly one of those.
No not that? You mean like the label you try and put on everyone else? :mrgreen:
Hypocrite much?
No just the ones that deserve it and you do..........
Got an interesting article for ya NP.
The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com
I hope to hear what you think.
Sorry I don't read the left wing rag Newsweek............
Got an interesting article for ya NP.
The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com
I hope to hear what you think.
That's a combination of the 'rights' argument and the 'let's change what marriage is' argument, both of which I already reject.
No just the ones that deserve it and you do..........
Huh? Did we read the same article? One of the major arguments he made was family, and as I recall, that is your bread and butter.
This classical liberalism argument can also be made...
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: A Short Essay|News/Opinion
Not "family" in a vague sense, but couples raising children specifically. If the couple does not reproduce, they are not a sociological organism and should not be elevated as such.
Did you also notice how the author cited the "Creator" mentioned in the DoI while omitting the fact that that same "Creator" specifically forbids same-sex sex?
Hypocrisy indeed.
Do you not see the "strictly legal contract" argument when you see it?
These are simply the same old tired out liberal arguments repackaged for a new gullible voting block.
This is the part where you accuse me of just rejecting everything out my alleged hatred of gays.....
:rofl Maybe you should start!Sorry I don't read the left wing rag Newsweek............
That is a matter of your personal opinion.
There are more societal advantages to marriage than simply procreation or child rearing.
The DOI was written largely by Desists.....
Only if you have no grasp of history.
How is it not a classical liberal argument?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?