Quote :

"deaf parents are inferior blind parents are inferior poor parents are inferior depressed parents are inferior blah blah blah what's the point of this discussion?"

^To decide whether or not doubling the divorce waiting period even though we already have the longest one in the region is a good bill and use of tax payers money.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 5:22:40 PM

Quote :

" Every data table in every single one of these studies (of those that even offer them) points to the exact opposite conclusion to the one the researchers make. All of their commentary is bluster and obfuscation flowing from a previous ideological commitment. It takes some heavy-duty statistical games just to show things getting even. The raw data isn't on their side - so they twist and turn and contort the numbers until the numbers cry 'uncle' and give them what they want. And this is as good as the data can possibly get for the side advocating gay adoption. Gay couples who have adopted to this point are the cream of the crop. It will only get worse from here as those more toward the middle join the crowd."

provide examples of backwards conclusions

4/4/2013 5:41:51 PM

It would be great if there were a way to legislate people to be good spouses and parents, but in the absence of this, i guess Tuliplovrs route of ornery, invasive, authoritative legislation is the next best thing.

4/4/2013 7:22:51 PM

TULIPlovr hates America

he hates us for our freedom

4/4/2013 8:12:05 PM

^^^ http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf - table 1, p. 762.

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Potter.pdf - table 3, p. 565.

Those are just two examples of two separate problems: 1) all the advocacy groups misrepresent the actual commentary by the researchers, and 2) The researchers themselves overstate their data after thoroughly massaging things. It is painfully clear through their commentary that they are attempting to make the data say something, and they played around with variables until they got it. I'm actually kind of shocked that they even included any unadjusted numbers, and even some of the adjusted numbers that didn't fully close the gaps they wanted to close. That's rare.

These two studies are much better than the others, which don't give anyone a reasonable way of following the process from raw data to conclusion.

It's an old-fashioned game of telephone, with tweaks in the message in the beginning that get amplified.

Quote :

"TULIPlovr hates America he hates us for our freedom"

Guilty.

4/4/2013 11:29:09 PM

Quote :

"You want the benefits of stable marriages without all the prerequisites. Marriage used to mean the joining of families and lives in a way that usually forced people to become less selfish. There is then a larger, greater institution of which they are only one part. An individual's happiness depended greatly on the well-being of the institution as a whole, so they would prioritize it and make sacrifices for it. Now that marriage, sex, child-rearing, etc. have become become buffet choices to take at the whims of personal preference and fulfillment, it's really hard to complain when people don't live up to their responsibilities. You tell them their life is all about themselves, and then get upset when they live like it."

I agree with this comment. But I'm indifferent to whether the marriage applies to a man and woman, 2 men, or 2 women.

4/4/2013 11:40:11 PM

Double-post to get back to the topic of divorce.

This guy nails it with this paragraph (though I would obviously dissent from some other things in the article):

Quote :

"A majority of Americans now approve of gay marriage for two fairly simple reasons. First, most Americans understand marriage as symbolic affirmation of a dissolvable commitment between consenting adults for purposes of emotional gratification. Second, an increasing number of Americans have come to know gay people in their own lives as beloved relatives, respected colleagues, or honored authorities rather than icons of flamboyance or specters of perversion. If you understand marriage in this sense, which has been socially dominant for decades, there is no plausible argument for denying it to gay individuals one loves and respects. As Rob Portman has discovered, the rest is reasoning from the particular to the general."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/gay-marriage-derangement-syndrome/

The important question isn't about gay marriage, but about what marriage is. You have to define an institution before you can determine who can belong to it.

Because there is general social agreement about the definition of marriage, only a short time has been (and will be) necessary for the public to find virtual unanimity on the next questions, one of which is gay marriage.

I'm as staunchly against gay marriage as anybody around, but I'm quite tired of the discussion focusing on the wrong thing. Gay marriage was a done deal 50 years ago or more, once the public (and then legal) conception of marriage started to change. Nobody will ever argue effectively against gay marriage under the current paradigm.

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 12:08 AM. Reason : a]

4/4/2013 11:59:08 PM

Since this thread is refusing to be a thread about the bill it's about:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

Quote :

"here is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[76] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[76] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[77]"

Marriage means a lot of different things across cultures, societies, religions, and histories and has always been changing. With 90%+ of the populations being heterosexual of course that's the majority over time, but that's not a great argument for denying a minority hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, property rights, insurance, taxes, being able to change your name, and so many other things in our society in 2013. Assuming one doesn't believe in evolution and if you ignore history, it's easy to say marriage has been one thing since the beginning of time since the Christian God made it so like 6000 years ago.

Y'all know I already have an active thread about gay marriage going on if you want to take that conversation there right? I think the law makers pushing the anti-divorce law had nothing mind about gay marriage when they wrote it and this law as far as I can tell will only affect heterosexually married couples in North Carolina if the Governor signs it.

4/5/2013 1:04:06 AM

^ We derive divorce law from our definition of marriage. The nature of an such an institution will determine both who can be involved in it and how it can end. Divorce law and gay marriage are not really separate issues. With an answer about what marriage is, the other things fall into place.

Sure the legislators probably didn't have anything about gay marriage in mind when they wrote it. But if you asked them why divorce should be more difficult, their answer would appeal to a principle that would also impact gay marriage.

4/5/2013 1:36:14 AM

Quote :

"Marriage used to mean the joining of families and lives in a way that usually forced people to become less selfish. There is then a larger, greater institution of which they are only one part. An individual's happiness depended greatly on the well-being of the institution as a whole, so they would prioritize it and make sacrifices for it."

lol

4/5/2013 1:46:11 AM

Why stop at homosexuals? Why not subject every potential marriage to a state-sponsored suitability test to determine who is most worthy to uphold such a prized institution?

I wonder what the questions would be.

4/5/2013 1:48:39 AM

and because its only about procreation, we need fertility tests

4/5/2013 7:05:25 AM

Quote :

"This guy nails it with this paragraph (though I would obviously dissent from some other things in the article): Quote : "A majority of Americans now approve of gay marriage for two fairly simple reasons. First, most Americans understand marriage as symbolic affirmation of a dissolvable commitment between consenting adults for purposes of emotional gratification. Second, an increasing number of Americans have come to know gay people in their own lives as beloved relatives, respected colleagues, or honored authorities rather than icons of flamboyance or specters of perversion. If you understand marriage in this sense, which has been socially dominant for decades, there is no plausible argument for denying it to gay individuals one loves and respects. As Rob Portman has discovered, the rest is reasoning from the particular to the general." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/gay-marriage-derangement-syndrome/"

um

... wow

4/5/2013 7:10:04 AM

Quote :

"Rather than acknowledging the reality of the situation, victims of gay marriage derangement syndrome just make stuff up."

lol

4/5/2013 8:04:44 AM

Quote :

"why are you backing up your views with "vague hypotheticals"?"

Because I already have scientific studies on my side, I can afford to toss out some ideas to try and make you think a little more broadly about what might make a good parent. I'm pleased to listen to your conjectures as well, as soon as you provide some minimal scientific backing for your core argument.

Quote :

"i am only feeling more secure in my point, because nobody can come up with a rebuttal that doesn't contradict the "all things being equal" premise."

What about the whole "you have exactly zero empirical or scientific evidence" part? You're going on nothing but a vague conjecture of relatability that falls apart when you consider the point I made that you conveniently forgot to touch on:

Quote :

"Parents and their kids are never identical. Every child goes through things and identifies with things their parents cannot relate to. Having periods is nowhere near the most challenging of these things."

If you think gender shapes someone's life so completely that they can be messed up by lacking a parent of that gender (Again, no scientific backing for this at all), then maybe you should be turning your eye on the society that creates such vastly different experiences based on gender and not the parents you feel are inadequate because of it.


[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2013 11:22:40 AM

Quote :

"the only way i will concede my argument is if someone can convince me that experiencing something yourself isn't of value when guiding someone in your care through the same situation. men and women, through natural and unavoidable social means, go through different experiences by default. having one of each, regardless of the gender of the child, ensures a larger collective of experiences to draw from."

Quote :

"the only way i will concede my argument is if someone can convince me that experiencing something yourself isn't of value"

I'm not sure what your argument is in the first place. That having a man and a woman as parents is better than having a man and a man or a woman and a woman, given all other factors are equal? I have no problem agreeing with you there. It's surely easier for a woman to explain women's issues, and vice versa.

The important part of this is do you believe this difference is significant enough to say that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Because that is absolutely ridiculous. Why not start with poor people? There is plenty of data behind poor children being extremely disadvantaged.

4/5/2013 12:15:21 PM

For fuck's sake, even the mentally handicapped are allowed to have children.

If you're making the argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, then you're being ridiculous.

If you're just explaining how gay parents are inferior, you're propagating bigotry by proxy.

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2013 12:19:24 PM

Quote :

"That having a man and a woman as parents is better than having a man and a man or a woman and a woman, given all other factors are equal? I have no problem agreeing with you there."

i have a problem agreeing with that

because science

(science = all those studies i posted. science = baller)

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason : autocorrect]

4/5/2013 12:21:16 PM

Those studies can't possibly control for every single variable.

My point was that the difference is so minute that it's indiscernible. So pretty much, I agree with you.

4/5/2013 12:26:30 PM

they include observational empirical studies and research. in a few they do actually notice a slight difference, but those things favorite children with two mothers.

4/5/2013 12:29:03 PM

Yeah, it's really a ridiculous argument anyways. There's no point in saying "well if we control everything but gender..." because it doesn't reflect the real-life population.

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2013 12:31:38 PM

You mean having a penis or a vagina has little to no bearing on a person's ability to raise a healthy and well-adjusted child? Who'da thunk it?

I mean, I was going to focus on instilling my kids with confidence and a desire to learn, but maybe I should just focus on sex from a male perspective.

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2013 12:54:33 PM

Quote :

"There's no point in saying "well if we control everything but gender..." because it doesn't reflect the real-life population."

you're right

they don't though

4/5/2013 1:00:13 PM

Quote :

"You mean having a penis or a vagina has little to no bearing on a person's ability to raise a healthy and well-adjusted child? Who'da thunk it? I mean, I was going to focus on instilling my kids with confidence and a desire to learn, but maybe I should just focus on sex from a male perspective."

easy there, cowboy. i was just trying to level with mistergreen.

tell me, when have you ever changed someone's mind by spewing sarcasm, vitriol, and moral superiority at them?

4/5/2013 1:10:14 PM

"Who Gives The Sex Talk To A Gay Child?"
http://www.queerty.com/who-gives-the-sex-talk-to-a-gay-child-20130308/

4/5/2013 1:16:42 PM

^
From the comments

Quote :

"My partner and I raised a boy and a girl. When it came time to give the sex talk, it was MUCH easier to talk to our son. With our daughter, it was awkward and there were questions she had that we really didn’t have good answers for. Ultimately, I took our daughter to our local chapter of Planned Parenthood. She was 12. The folks there were FANTASTIC. A nurse took my daughter into a private room and talked with her for about an hour. I told them I wanted them to answer any questions she had, that I didn’t need to know what she asked unless she wanted to share it with me, and I told them they could give her any material they felt she needed to better understand the changes her body was going through."

4/5/2013 1:18:51 PM

^^
A)Wasn't necessarily responding to you so much as making a general statement.
B)Good example of male parents doing good parenting, right? They didn't feel comfortable so they deferred to a nurse.
C)I've never actually tried to directly change the opinion of the person on the Internet that I'm engaged with.

4/5/2013 1:52:55 PM

Wait, people actually get "sex talks"?

*Yes, I realize some do, but I wasn't aware that it was actually NEEDED. No one ever told me anything

**I can understand girls needing at least a bleeding vag talk.

[Edited on April 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2013 2:17:44 PM

Quote :

"If you're just explaining how gay parents are inferior, you're propagating bigotry by proxy."

I'm convinced this is it. They and many others know they lost this war, the last thing left for them to grasp at is a final fleeting sense of SOME kind of moral superiority over homosexuals. Is this what the gay marriage debate has really been about? Straight bigots defending their privileges as a way to boost their self-esteem?

There were probably folks 50 years ago saying of interracial marriages, "Well, all else being equal, I think it'd be much less confusing for the child if both parents were the same race. I'm okay with it, it's probably minute, but I just need to repeat a dozen times that I'm sure that they are marginally inferior somehow."

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/8/2013 9:50:32 AM

I'll just leave this here: http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/

4/8/2013 10:13:25 AM

I'm just gonna place this here.....http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010#ixzz2PpogErtH

^ That's actually a really good article. The worldview is repulsive and destructive, but it is very good. She gets it.

Simple truth: married, biological parents are the best defense a child has against poverty, hunger, sexual abuse, substance abuse, crime, and poor education. If "Married Biological Parents" were the name of a drug, our government would spend trillions making sure everyone had it. It would be a crime to withhold it from anyone. The effort to spread it around the world would be bigger and better than the Manhattan Project, the space program, and all of the Great Society programs put together. The world would think it had finally found its purpose, and the creator of the drug would be the world's first trillionaire. We would sacrifice anything and everything on the altar of getting more Married Biological Parents onto the market.

Instead, we have done just about everything we can to take it away.

I'll also just leave this here. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_link_between_rented_wombs_and_gay_marriage

4/8/2013 4:18:04 PM

you keep saying simple truth to things that are not simple or true

also, could you tell me more about gay marriage derangement syndrome

4/8/2013 4:33:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm just gonna place this here.....http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010#ixzz2PpogErtH "

To what end? Do we really need to drag out the hundreds of articles available of heterosexual parents that have abused, molested or raped their their children?

4/8/2013 5:27:59 PM

So, sociopaths? Yes, the literature has confirmed this time and time again.

Quote :

"Simple truth: married, biological parents are the best defense a child has against poverty, hunger, sexual abuse, substance abuse, crime, and poor education."

The "biological" part is a little spurious, unless you've got some studies that control for biological/non-biological parents. Yes, there's no better predictor for future success than one parent versus two parents, and I think we would actually see, if we could do good studies for it, that having a strong extended family (i.e. grandparents that were actually around) would also be a positive for the child.

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2013 5:54:36 PM

I was easily able to find some studies that showed that biological fathers are statistically worse than non-biological fathers. Not too surprising, given that being a biological parent for many people is due to stupidity and ignorance rather than intentional procreation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731140123.htm

4/8/2013 6:32:48 PM

^ They don't measure anything that matters. Suicide, substance abuse, grades, criminal behavior, teen pregnancy, etc. - those matter and are more measurable. That thing is entirely composed of interviews, surveys, and feelings. That's not exactly the best thing to lean on.

Here's a real study:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009

Quote :

"Considering both factors, the NIS–4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect. "

Single parent living with a partner is the WORST possible arrangement.

Gay 'married' couples and their kids will fall right in line with the single mothers who are foolish enough to have a live-in boyfriend.

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 7:16 PM. Reason : a]

4/8/2013 7:14:13 PM

do i need to take a pill to cure my gay marriage derangement syndrome? or classes? how do i get cured?

4/8/2013 7:22:08 PM

From the same study:

Quote :

"Perpetrator’s relationship to the child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents). Biological parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 71% of physically abused children and for 73% of emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. More than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent (whether biological or nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent. In addition, severity of harm from physical abuse varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent. "

Unfortunately, this study doesn't look at married, both non-biological parents, i.e. married couples that adopted. The "Other Married" group seems to include biological parent + step-parent, which is often quite different than a married couple that went out of their way to adopt a child.

4/8/2013 7:34:08 PM

Guns don't harm kids, gay marriage does.

4/8/2013 7:37:34 PM

you have to use quotation marks around marriage, to make it clear no one thinks you endorse it

4/8/2013 7:53:55 PM

TULIPlovr being completely irrational itt (as per usual)

look, all of you conservative religious nuts need to cool it on your attempts to force everyone into a box (biological man and woman parents, that's it, that's all we're going to allow!) because everyone in society won't fit in it

there will be gay couples with children in the future, so quit trying to deny them rights based on your own narrow view of the universe

in all the bullshit you posted, there's no sound reasoning for denying gay couples adoptive (or reproductive) rights

honestly, there are still going to be children given up for adoption by adolescent unwed mothers (something like 90% of these couples aren't married to each other within a year of the birth: but that's not cool in TULIPlovr's book, because surely these two teenagers know something about being better parents than older, more emotionally and financially stable adoptive couples) - and quite frankly, a home with any loving parent is better than without one

basically, shut it about forcing your worldview on a society that will never be your ideal

and just because you and to be tied to someone FOREVER regardless of circumstances doesn't mean that other people want to be with spouses who beat them, or cheat on them, etc: there are plenty of good reasons for divorce

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 8:12 PM. Reason : also: this extra year of waiting for a divorce is just plain stupid]

4/8/2013 8:07:58 PM

I actually find TULIPlovr's beliefs very admirable, but I just can't shake my hatred toward children. Gay marriage (along with abortion, birth control, etc) is an excellent way to lower their numbers and ensure their failure in society. It feels good to finally admit it.

4/8/2013 8:16:13 PM

I never plan on having children, either

so telling me I would have to wait an extra year if I want a divorce is ridiculous anyway

4/8/2013 8:35:07 PM

"Raleigh Among Nation’s Top for Gay Families"
http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/raleigh-among-nations-top-for-gay-families

Quote :

"Raleigh landed third nationally on a list of metro areas for same sex couples with children. This comes the same week that census data showed more and more gay couples reporting domestic partnerships in North Carolina. Of course, there's no way to measure how much of the 68% jump over a decade ago is a true increase and how much is simply a greater willingness to share that information with the government."

4/8/2013 8:40:05 PM

oh no! gay marriage derangement syndrome outbreak in Raleigh!

4/9/2013 12:02:26 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/11/missouri-man-arrested-at-hospital-for-refusing-to-leave-gay-partner/

Quote :

"A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation. Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday. Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building. “I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained. He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other."

Unfortunately no set of contracts and powers of attorney actually afford you those things in practice, part of the reason why the word marriage is so much more than just a word in how our society operates today.

4/11/2013 11:09:20 AM