|
The idea that gay people want to be married is no more strange than idea that heterosexual people want to be married.
Then why are we having this debate? Of course it seems strange to at least some people out there, although I believe to most other people. If it was not perceived as strange then why do countries have to conduct elections for its implementation into the marriage system?
|
I dont get the thing about why make a shit storm about gay marriage. Why dont just let ppl get married if they want? Whats the big deal if two gays get married? Does it affect ur life so much that u cant be happy for them, because u disagree with what they value in life? I just dont get it.
|
Before you judge my post, I hold a dual citizenship for both Australia and Canada. Whilst in Canada, gay marriage has been successfully integrated into society, I do not see the same for Australia.
Australians are more aggressive by nature in their opinions and all I can see is more hate crimes arising from such a bill passing.
|
I get warned for saying a person who just called me stupid is a genius and they don't get warned. Fair enough, I'll take that as a hint and log off.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
I get warned for saying a person who just called me stupid is a genius and they don't get warned. Fair enough, I'll take that as a hint and log off.
You got warned for making a personal attack. Don't try to play the victim.
Also, saying your post is stupid is appropriate. Calling a person stupid = personal attack. Calling what that person said stupid is not.
|
On October 22 2011 05:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
I get warned for saying a person who just called me stupid is a genius and they don't get warned. Fair enough, I'll take that as a hint and log off.
but he supplied evidence for his opinion 
|
On October 22 2011 05:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:23 T3tra wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:
[quote]
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it. Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic. You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
It's pretty bold to assume that gay rights groups are somehow lobbying and buying their way into influencing studies. For instance I would actually be surprised if any of the research carried out on the subject was funded by anything except the university where the research was performed.
Then there's also the fact that all science is published and peer reviewed. If the studies had been poorly performed it would have been picked up on by other psychologists and criticised heavily for having poor methodology. As far as I know this has not been the case
|
Well, for the record, I hold a citizenship for South Africa, and you haven't seen shit until you've been living here for many years. If some of you think that my opinion is based on something as thin as air, then think again; as my opinion is based on quite a lot of experience. You think you've seen all that society has to offer? Come live here my friend, I implore you.
I live in a beautiful country, but even for all its beauty and splendour it is still a country ravaged by myriad issues in society. You want racial diversity? You got it here. You want violence? You got it here. You want poverty? You got it here. You want homosexual marriages? You got it here. In abundance I might add.
Please do not try to scar my opinions which are based on a lot more which you will ever know. I have many friends coming from different cultural backgrounds, and know a bit about what their views and beliefs on life are. I even have homosexual friends. Do not judge me based on one statement which I said with the uttermost of humbleness, and never intended to offend gay marriages.
|
I find these obstructions so "yesterday" there are so many gay people "out of the closet" today that reading stuff like this makes me feel sorry for the gay people. Btw all these obstructions are because of conservative religions acting in people rights. and about the people talking about how nasty/disgusting is being gay, let them be, although it's no right in a genetic/evolution point of view, every one has the right to choose what make them happy, and everyone should have the right to be happy. so show respect! for the harsh people, maybe one day your own son will tell you that he is gay, will you have this "disgust" towards you own son?
|
On October 22 2011 05:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:23 T3tra wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:
[quote]
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it. Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic. You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
...why don't you look up the study then?
See, the thing is, it is very difficult to actually change somebody's mind. You OR me. If you were to look up the study, and find out that it completely satisfied your skepticism, you would simply make another excuse to justify the same opinion. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not actually calling you out, because everybody does it.
But the fact is, I'm skeptical that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You can always ask for more and different evidence or evidence that is impossible to produce. Then claim that your opinion is completely valid because we are uncertain without that specific piece of evidence despite the other mountains of evidence we do have.
|
United States1941 Posts
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you.
If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion.
If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
|
On October 22 2011 06:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:23 T3tra wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
[quote]
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it. Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic. You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything. ...why don't you look up the study then? See, the thing is, it is very difficult to actually change somebody's mind. You OR me. If you were to look up the study, and find out that it completely satisfied your skepticism, you would simply make another excuse to justify the same opinion. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not actually calling you out, because everybody does it. But the fact is, I'm skeptical that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You can always ask for more and different evidence or evidence that is impossible to produce. Then claim that your opinion is completely valid because we are uncertain without that specific piece of evidence despite the other mountains of evidence we do have.
I'm happy to report that I have looked through the literature. Conclusive studies on this simply do not exist. The best that can be said is "in the absence of bullying, gay two parent families may not do worse than straight two parent families, in terms of the child's happiness from ages 5-18."
As for the two people who replied to my previous post: no, I am not trolling. I see you have yet to take the red pill.
|
Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
|
Seriously doesn't even need a law you should just be able to do this.
|
|
|
why do they want to get married? betting half their shit that they won't break up? just kidding
|
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote:
Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
|
i don't see such a study being performed without raising some thousands of test babies for a lifetime
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural.
Something that happens free from deliberate tampering is unnatural?
|
Honestly whichever way this turns out, the fact we're still letting the majority vote for rights for the minority is disgusting and as soon as we as a species start simply enforcing equal rights we might finally have legitimate claim to the word "civilised".
For clarification I mean that as a species wide thing rather than an attack on any one specific country/people/belief - I just find it impossible to get my head around voting on this kinda thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
