The Data on Children in Same-Sex Households Get More Depressing - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#14697680
Nonsense wrote:Anything else is a substitution of that 'default' position of nature, which only a subversive political party is likely to 'engineer' for the minority groups that it represents & not reflecting the 'democratic' nature of society or it's political model.

One may reasonably conclude that nature has produced a system that is most beneficial to rearing offspring(male-female) & that only a dysfunctional political system would have the intent of favouring the non-traditional over the natural order of things.


This also implies that the Nuclear Family is the "default," position of nature, which is plainly not so as the vast majority of human history was spent in communal and familial existence. It is very likely, though not verifiable, that before the Neolithic the norm was to not have a father figure as it is likely he would have died from accident or war.

This is, of course, not to suggest that we should emulate the Neolithic or Paleolithic as that would be plainly dumb. But it does underline that there are limitations to attempting to apply a seemingly natural solution to the modern world.

And, at the risk of sounding partisan, this is a trap that the liberal-left falls into far more than the right.

--edit--

Paradigm beat me to this, but I want to post too, damnit!
#14697689
Donald wrote:Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature.


Fail.

Your own source wrote:As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians.


Your own source specifically denies this.

Unless you are going to claim that non-Christians don't exist, which your source also clearly states isn't true.

Try reading your sources before googling something that sounds about right :)
#14697699
The Immortal Goon wrote:......

Paradigm beat me to this, but I want to post too, damnit!


Posting in the same thread as both of you often leaves me feeling this way.

-----------

@Donald,

I believe The Immortal Goon is saying that your source denies that Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature.
#14697706
Donald wrote:Where have I "outright" lied?

Playing dumb about your source regarding sacramental marriage, and about having made empirical claims in your original post. I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but of course we all know that the reason you're doing all this is because you are.
#14697708
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Donald,

I believe The Immortal Goon is saying that your source denies that Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature.


Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature because all are in fact called to follow Jesus Christ (i.e. we are called to become Christians and obey His commandments) and Christ Himself, as the Word of God, is intimated with Creation in the natural law.

Paradigm wrote:Playing dumb about your source regarding sacramental marriage, and about having made empirical claims in your original post. I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but of course we all know that the reason you're doing all this is because you are.


I'm not "playing dumb". You are simply over-extending yourself, a common mistake made by many white knights who have come before you.
#14697712
Donald wrote:White knight


It would be terrible to be in such a dark place that you would sneer, name-call, and condescend to people simply for agreeing with each other. I do hope that some day you will find peace instead of trying to spread discord and misery wherever you see positive agreement :)

Donald wrote:Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature because all are in fact called to follow Jesus Christ (i.e. we are called to become Christians and obey His commandments) and Christ Himself, as the Word of God, is intimated with Creation in the natural law.


You are getting further binded into darkness with each lie you try to use to retain your sinful pride. Now you have been reduced to promoting some kind of New Age hippy Protestantism.

Fail:

Your own source wrote:Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament


Don't turn your back on Holy Mother Church by embracing lies and pride; don't spite your neighbors for their virtues. I can help you make right with Christ if you let go of your hubris and angry fallacies.
#14697713
Paradigm wrote:Continuing to bear false witness. Enjoy the Lake of Fire, sinner.


Image

TIG wrote:Now you have been reduced to promoting some kind of New Age hippy Protestantism.


How so?

TIG wrote:Don't turn your back on Holy Mother Church by embracing lies and pride; don't spite your neighbors for their virtues. I can help you make right with Christ if you let go of your hubris and angry fallacies.


How does "Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament" and "As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians" specifically contradict "Sacramental marriage is the ingenerate prescript of nature"?
#14697715
Paradigm wrote:Playing dumb about your source regarding sacramental marriage


That is a cheap accusation while doubling down on an insult. He claimed that sacramental marriage is the only true marriage according to his Roman Catholic prescriptions and as a Roman Catholic he is well within his rights to do so, his source confirms his claims the Roman Catholic way and does not contradict him in any way.

One can easily say that the Roman Catholic way is invalid according to the human condition, but one can definitely not say that the Roman Catholics contradict their own way by their own words themselves, because they clearly do not.

The Immortal Goon wrote:It would be terrible to be in such a dark place that you would sneer, name-call, and condescend to people simply for agreeing with each other.


He is actually quite prudent after being called a liar for no apparent reason.

------------------------

Paradigm wrote:Evaluating Studies that Find No Differences Resulting from Having a Gay Parent: Some critics of the LGB parenting research object to the small, non-random sampling methods known as “convenience sampling” that researchers in the field often use to gather their data. Yet within the field, convenience sampling is not considered a methodological flaw, but simply a limitation to generalizability. Within sociology and especially psychology, small, qualitative and longitudinal studies are considered to have certain advantages over probability studies: Such data can allow investigators to notice and analyze subtleties and texture in child development over time that large, statistical studies often miss. It is important to note, moreover, that some of the research that finds no differences among children with same-sex parents does use large, representative data. A 2010 study by Stanford researcher Michael Rosenfeld used census data to examine the school advancement of 3,500 children with same-sex parents, finding no significant differences between households headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents when controlling for family background. Another study drew on nationally representative, longitudinal data using a sampling pool of over 20,000 children, of which 158 lived in a same-sex parent household. Controlling for family disruptions, those children showed no significant differences from their peers in school outcomes.


So if I understand this correctly, from the 74 studies cited as evidence only 2 provided a valid sample range and these 2 only dealt with school performance while correcting for financial background.
#14697718
noemon wrote:That is a cheap accusation while doubling down on an insult. He claimed that sacramental marriage is the only true marriage according to his Roman Catholic prescriptions and as a Roman Catholic he is well within his rights to do so, his source confirms his claims the Roman Catholic way and does not contradict him in any way.

One can easily say that the Roman Catholic way is invalid according to the human condition, but one can definitely not say that the Roman Catholics contradict their own way by their own words themselves, because they clearly do not.

He said it was "the ingenerate prescript of nature." This is far different from saying it is "true marriage." And he said this in response to the historical fact that the nuclear family is a fairly recent phenomenon.

He is actually quite prudent after being called a liar for no apparent reason.

He claimed not to be making empirical claims despite beginning this thread with what purported to be an empirical study. Either he is lying, or he has no idea what empiricism is.

So if I understand this correctly, from the 74 studies cited as evidence only 2 provided a valid sample range and these 2 only dealt with school performance while correcting for financial background.

That's two more than the studies than the studies Donald cited, and it also explained what advantages those small sizes have in studies over time, which is precisely the advantage that Donald's original study claimed to have.
#14697723
Paradigm wrote:He said it was "the ingenerate prescript of nature." This is far different from saying it is "true marriage." And he said this in response to the historical fact that the nuclear family is a fairly recent phenomenon.


He said that sacramental marriage is the true natural marriage which translates into: Roman Catholic marriage is the only valid & natural marriage according to Roman Catholics. His source confirms his claim that this is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with you that the human condition contradicts nuclear marriage, but I do not agree with you or TiG that the Roman Catholics do not have the position that Donald said they do. I do not see how can you make such a claim.

He claimed not to be making empirical claims despite beginning this thread with what purported to be an empirical study. Either he is lying, or he has no idea what empiricism is.


He was accused of intellectual dishonesty because he supposedly misrepresented the Catholic dogma in his source according to TiG and then that accusation was repeated by yourself. He did not misrepresent Catholic dogma. I cannot make sense what is wrong with the study he cited in the OP.

That's two more than the studies than the studies Donald cited, and it also explained what advantages those small sizes have in studies over time, which is precisely the advantage that Donald's original study claimed to have.


I took the liberty of clicking your link and then clicking some of these 74 studies, I truly suggest you click on some of them, some of them are meta-analysis, some of them sample 8 families, yes 8, some of them ask questions unrelated about the social experience of girls in lesbian households, lots of them are from the 1980's when the practice was non-existent, I clicked on as much as I could, about 10-15 from the 74, but the result was disheartening for the homosexual argument.
#14697728
Just wading in quickly before I bomb this cesspit of a thread with an orbital strike.

My two cents is that the reason same sex couples tend to fail at parenting to a greater extent, is due to the scattered and confused nature of the upbringing. There is no balance. No variety of roles to aspire to. Little contrast. No dimorphic biology at play. A kind of neoliberal decadence where the norm is to be shunned just because its hip, where biology and scientific inquiry that clashes with political idealism is a threat.

All of this would encourage benign neglect by way of misconstruing reality (the world is a magical place, if you wish hard enough anything is possible jimmy) which in itself isn't harmful-if you live in a bubble, which most don't. This leaves the kids confused and afraid when they step out of the house because they are being raised in a bubble that is representative of a niche abnormality within broader society.

They never develop the means with which to deal with criticism or playful intolerance. They become tumblrinas/SJW's incapable of true humour or self deprecation. They become professional victims, self-perceived to be under constant attack. As you can imagine being under constant siege leads to salty tears.
#14697734
My personal opinion has been that homosexuals should raise children collectively, that is in households with gays, lesbians and optionally heterosexuals cohabiting, children being raised by many rather than 2 forcing themselves in a nuclear role. I find the whole nuclear homosexual family ridiculous, as do many of the homosexuals I know. Why do homosexuals ascribe to a nuclear coupling role, when so many of them find the whole structure and lifestyle of it abhorrent and depressing? And isn't this an attempt to fit into a heterosexual paradigm instead of creating their own paradigm? Isn't this also a heterosexual attempt to assimilate the homosexuals into their own gender roles?

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

...You are a supporter of the genocide against th[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]