• Romans 1:27
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;46357100]Just a quick question: When would you say that sex becomes a need? I know literally hundreds of peoples in their 20s who haven't had sex and live very fulfilling lives. From what I can tell, and based on personal experience, their lack of sex has no detrimental effect on their happiness or mental health.[/QUOTE] I think you literally can not [I]know[/I] know hundreds of people. They all have their own struggles and I doubt you have seen every problem they deal with. In fact, I struggle to see how you could know for sure if they've had sex whether they have told you they haven't or not, let alone how you could know if their apparent lack of sex is taking any toll on them. Anecdotal evidence remember is trumped by long standing psychological understanding. I think that their lack of sex probably somewhere contributes - except in some people who are asexual or what have you - to a general feeling of anxiety and if it hasn't it is very possible it will in the future. The lack of sex, just as with the lack of clothes, is not the direct cause of mental illness but it can be a contributing factor, I think is the idea. [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] It may be that Maslow was wrong to put sex down as a basic need - I can't find anywhere that says this is the case however, modern theory seems to support the claim so I will continue to argue that it is at this point - but if he was wrong then it would fall up in the third stage with intimacy, romance and friendship. The idea behind Maslow's Hierarchy is that you must fullfill the first stages before you will start to desire (and feel anxiety without) the next stage. So sex as a need, if Maslow was wrong, falls after you get Safety. That is after you are financially secure, you have resources, you have developed your own morality, you have a strong family and good health. That would be why people in their 20s are still not seeking or affected badly by lack of sex - a claim which I think at this point is baseless (though it makes sense to me, I can see where you are coming from, it's just the experts seem to suggest otherwise and since I only focused in detail on it today I'm gonna trust them over me). Failing to fullfill the next stage will always cause anxiety by the way, so the threat and damage is done whether sex is at the first stage or the third, it's just more pertinent at the first. [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] Oh ok he included masturbation in sex at the bottom. The third stage is the requirement for sex with another person. [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] So yeah all your friends are just masturbating.
Can you point to these psychological studies that you keep mentioning? I would love to read through them. I have trouble taking Maslow at his word when even the Wikipedia article cites psychological criticisms and studies that go against his theory.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46357188]Can you point to these psychological studies that you keep mentioning? I would love to read through them.[/QUOTE] All of Maslow's studies on college populations and "exemplary people" formed the basis for his theories. [url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/8703989/Maslow-s-Hierarchy-of-Needs-A-Critical-Analysis[/url] That's the most recent review of the theory. Whilst there is a general acceptance that there was an oversimplification of the theory, the basic idea holds with modern theory. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161123/[/url] Ooh a more recent one than the other. Yeah so basically they say Maslow's theory falls apart after further study [I]but[/I] they generally agree that the base idea is good requiring a lot of alteration but still there is a level of requirement for the needs he listed. Sex, romance and affection remain as needs in both of these documents. Empirical evidence is scant and not detailed enough however they still conclude, despite this, that the basic aspects of Maslow's hierarchy hold. [editline]29th October 2014[/editline] Though not necessarily in the precise original form, I still haven't seen anywhere written that sex is not a part of the hierarchy that eventually would be required for the sake of sanity.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46356989]I use homosexuality to refer to both sexual attraction and romantic attraction, the proper term for the romantic attraction is homoromanticism - I use them synonymously and that was my mistake. I see no reason to seperate the two in this discussion however so I am just going to use gay from here on in. A gay person is not just about gay sex, they also require romantic attraction. The things you refer to, clothes, food and water are all found in fundamental psychology to be the basis for a human being to avoid anxiety and the development of mental disorders. Guess what else has been right there along with [I]breathing[/I]? Sex. Sexual intimacy - that which is advocated by religious marriage - is a little further down the line as a requirement. It is therefore fundamentally accepted that the activity of sex alone is required for a healthy mind and that can be achieved through marriage and within a religious context without hurting anyone as long as everyone has that option, but before then you can't advocate celibacy outside of marriage for people who you won't permit to be married without advocating a higher risk of mental illness for those people. I haven't proven that a large proportion of people need to have sex as badly as they need clean clothes, psychologists have. Science and that.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to say that a christian who happens to be gay should not get married, rather that if they are to follow Christian doctrine, they are to marry a person of the opposite sex. There are gay Christians, though they generally prefer not being identified as gay, that do in fact testify to a healthy marriage relationship (Doug Mainwaring and Michael Glatze to name a couple). [QUOTE]Sexual immorality - as you would define it - for some is synonymous with the basic need of sex (keep in mind that sex as a basic need has to be catered for differently to things like food and water, I would think it's more akin to clothing in that you may be unable to acquire clothes and survive but their lack results in psychological stress which is not mentally healthy). For reference: my main source for these statements is Maslow's Hierarchy but what he posited has been reinforced by psychology study since.[/QUOTE] Sexual immorality is when one satisfies (or attempts to satisfy) sexual desires outside of holy matrimony, it's vital to distinguish between that and the libido. I see you've posted some sources that support maslow's hierarchy so I'll look into them. [QUOTE]Yeah I will say it wasn't your mistake here it was mine. Homosexuality technically refers to just the sexual activity, however on operating on that definition I find it completely innapropriate for the context of the conversation, gay or lgbt suits better.[/QUOTE] Well, it also refers to the basic libido, so I was not wholly right in using that term as I meant to refer to the activity exclusively. [QUOTE]I think the clearer statements trump the more ambiguous ones and given cultural contexts during the time it is still not a stretch to suggest that the bible implicitly approves of loving and caring relationships, approves of the human requirement for intimacy as a need for a healthy life and therefore must approve of gay marriage otherwise lgbt people will be living in sin purely because of a lack of acceptance within the Church.[/QUOTE] What clearer statements are there that could trump the implicit ones (they are not ambiguous)? Scripture explicitly supports everything you say except inclusion of same-sex relationships under marriage, that is simply tagged on as you assume that it is good for a person to pursue a same-sex relationship if the want to. While you can have loving, caring relationships outside of marriage without sinning, you cannot satisfy homosexual desire without sinning under Christian theology. [QUOTE]The Church wouldn't be deviating from the original teachings to alter it to be something it was not intended to be by accepting equal marriage, just growing in its understanding of what the original teachings really were.[/QUOTE] They would be adding to scripture plain and simple, an act it quite clearly condemns.
I think then we have a fundamental disagreement (surprise!) - I tried to make sure everything I have said is supported by scripture that's the point of me engaging you to confirm that fact. I honestly believe that gay marriage is possible under the Catholic Church and all Christian denominations - though my understanding comes purely from Catholicism that's where I've received most of my Christian education from. I can see and there is plenty of evidence that suggests whilst maybe some people can have happy and healthy marriages whilst being gay with people of the opposite sex, there are more people who are widely negatively affected by lack of marriage of equality. People who have their quality of life diminished and people who die. These incidents are a direct result of a society that doesn't fully accept marriage equality. There are two things you can do: 1. Create a society where it is ok to be gay and married to someone of the opposite sex - which doesn't exist at the moment and makes the statement that lgbt people can not love their chosen gender the way straight people do, which I know for a fact is wrong and on that basis can conclude that this will never happen - or, 2. Marriage equality can be achieved for secular institutions which will permit changing attitudes and eventually lead to religious institutions adopting the process [I]in accordance with[/I] sacrosanct documents, I don't believe it will require any addition to scripture or any other religious document at any level further than has already been performed and maintained previously. Point 2 will save lives, point 1 will move to try and save lives but the fact is because people fall in love with members of the same sex and love is damned powerful stuff, point 1 will never be fully achieved whilst point 2 is much more possible because you aren't changing a person's fundamental nature, just their understanding of how someone else works. Clearer statements: (they are ambiguous because they have more than one meaning/interpretation see: all the denominations of Christianity) love (even as an action word!). Pretty sure that's the basis of the Bible and I'll win any PR campaign against someone claiming otherwise and that's all this is, a PR campaign with lives hanging in the balance and only one side can win and save lives - if the other side wins people will die as a result. If you actively encourage behaviour that puts lives at risk, you actively are not loving those people.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46357439]I think then we have a fundamental disagreement (surprise!) - I tried to make sure everything I have said is supported by scripture that's the point of me engaging you to confirm that fact. I honestly believe that gay marriage is possible under the Catholic Church and all Christian denominations - though my understanding comes purely from Catholicism that's where I've received most of my Christian education from.[/QUOTE] I really hate to push on this, but it isn't a matter of opinion. So called Christians who embrace same-sex marriage do so in opposite to the scripture. You haven't so much made Biblical arguments as inferences based on vague Biblical concepts while also ignoring the parts that you don't like. Here's a single Biblical argument out of many: The original and ideal concept of marriage between Adam and Eve is explicitly male/female, not ambiguously between two lovers. Genesis 2:24 states: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Notice the first part of the verse that says, "For this reason." So the reason given for this union must have just been given in the text proceeding this verse, which says: "22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Ah, so now we know the reason for the union: that God made women from the flesh of man. The key here is that it was explicitly a woman made from a man. There is no possible argument to say that man is, in the same way, made from other men. So the "reason" for marriage is found in this very explicitly male/female binary of their very creation. The foundation of marriage isn't found in love, desire, or any other emotion, but the very intended state of male female romantic relationship. There are many other arguments to be made based on the imagery of God the father as husband to the church, as Christ being the head of man in the same way that man is the head of women, etc.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46357439]I think then we have a fundamental disagreement (surprise!) - I tried to make sure everything I have said is supported by scripture that's the point of me engaging you to confirm that fact. I honestly believe that gay marriage is possible under the Catholic Church and all Christian denominations - though my understanding comes purely from Catholicism that's where I've received most of my Christian education from. Clearer statements: (they are ambiguous because they have more than one meaning/interpretation see: all the denominations of Christianity) love (even as an action word!). Pretty sure that's the basis of the Bible and I'll win any PR campaign against someone claiming otherwise and that's all this is, a PR campaign with lives hanging in the balance and only one side can win and save lives - if the other side wins people will die as a result.[/QUOTE] The issue with what you are saying is that it ignores scriptural teachings on how married couples should conduct themselves (all of which confirm a heterosexual model). This teaching is deeply ingrained in Christian theology, so deeply that the very relationship between the Church and Christ is compared to the relationship between that of the husband and wife: [QUOTE=ESV bible: Ephesians 5:22-24]22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.[/QUOTE] There is simply no room for anything but the monogomous hetersoxual couple in Christian marriage. How else can you interpret the fact that not a single doctrinal statement about the marriage union in scripture deviates from the heterosexual model? How do you explain the quote from Ephesians? Also scripture does offer an objective definition of what love is: [QUOTE=ESV bible: Romans 13:8-10]8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.[/QUOTE] As for the variety of interpretation on certain issues, there objectively good interpretations and objectively bad ones, an interpretation that fails to take into account clear doctrinal statements about love or marriage is an objectively bad one. An interpretation that is objectively bad should not be considered equal to those that are not. [QUOTE]I can see and there is plenty of evidence that suggests whilst maybe some people can have happy and healthy marriages whilst being gay with people of the opposite sex, there are more people who are widely negatively affected by lack of marriage of equality. People who have their quality of life diminished and people who die. These incidents are a direct result of a society that doesn't fully accept marriage equality. There are two things you can do:[/QUOTE] I'd like to note that I don't subscribe by the nomenclature of marriage inequality as it suggests that gays do not have equal access to the rights of straight people, which is of course not the case. What you are claiming is that gays are widely negatively affected by the traditional definition of marriage. Also what evidence supports the claim that traditional marriage directly diminishes quality of life and causes people to die? [QUOTE]Create a society where it is ok to be gay and married to someone of the opposite sex - which doesn't exist at the moment and makes the statement that lgbt people can not love their chosen gender the way straight people do, which I know for a fact is wrong and on that basis can conclude that this will never happen - or,[/QUOTE] We live in a society where you can love whoever you want however you want (with age restrictions when it comes to minors of course). Traditional marriage isn't keeping people from loving each other however they see fit. [QUOTE]Marriage equality can be achieved for secular institutions which will permit changing attitudes and eventually lead to religious institutions adopting the process [I]in accordance with[/I] sacrosanct documents, I don't believe it will require any addition to scripture or any other religious document at any level further than has already been performed and maintained previously.[/QUOTE] It would require extreme eisegetical interpretation of scripture along with clear disregard of fundamental doctrine pertaining to the relationship between God and the Church. To redefine marriage in Christianity is to redefine the religion itself. [QUOTE]If you actively encourage behaviour that puts lives at risk, you actively are not loving those people.[/QUOTE] I would say the same of your position: [url]http://www.ccv.org/issues/homosexuality/cdc-94-to-95-percent-of-hiv-casesg-men-linked-to-homosexual-sex/[/url] [url]http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481699[/url]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46361907] [url]http://www.ccv.org/issues/homosexuality/cdc-94-to-95-percent-of-hiv-casesg-men-linked-to-homosexual-sex/[/url] [url]http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481699[/url][/QUOTE] that first study, whilst it has a point, is not really proof that gay sex is destroying gay peoples lives, or souls or morality, just that there is a virus that is easily transferred through anal sex and it's a serious issue for the human population of earth, in general, and not just a "gay disease". The second study is really quite old and more recent studies have contradicted that study pretty heavily. It is also worth it to note that that study doesn't have the ability to pin their psychiatric disorders purely to the act of gay sex and gay love.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46362043]that first study, whilst it has a point, is not really proof that gay sex is destroying gay peoples lives, or souls or morality, just that there is a virus that is easily transferred through anal sex and it's a serious issue for the human population of earth, in general, and not just a "gay disease". The second study is really quite old and more recent studies have contradicted that study pretty heavily. It is also worth it to note that that study doesn't have the ability to pin their psychiatric disorders purely to the act of gay sex and gay love.[/QUOTE] The first study simply indicates a sad fact about the homosexual lifestyle currently, true it doesn't get at the ultimate source of the problem, but if you are encouraging someone to follow such a lifestyle, you are encouraging them to a higher chance of infection statistically speaking. I'm not sure how the age of the second study matters, my point in posting it was to show that even in a country that is very tolerant of the gay lifestyle there is still a discrepancy between the mental health of sexually active heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals. What comparable studies have contradicted it?
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm[/url] Well that's a pretty good start for one. In either case, you are skewering the studies to be for your specific point, but neither of them support your end game argument that gay sex and gay love is a negative thing deemed a sin. AIDS has a higher chance of spreading through anal sex, holy shit a virus evolved to best exploit a natural orifice of the body in a natural function of said orifice as we see it repeated in nature, that being said, the risk is purely statistical and is not from "being" gay. The risks are mitigatable and avoidable with safe practices and you wholly ignore that by skewering that statistic. As far as mental health goes, I've already given you one link, but age does actually have quite a bit to do with things in the field of science as old theories and ideas and evidence give way to new evidence and models. With mental health, there are a great deal of factors to consider, so many so, that one might be irresponsible to blame their mental health issues on the gay sex and gay love in their lives as it would be inaccurate, and not even a well thought out summation of the problems faced by gay people to this very day.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46365969][url]http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm[/url] Well that's a pretty good start for one.[/QUOTE] The page seems to just be presenting one interpretation of the evidence, I assume you're talking about the references at the bottom? Unfortunately the first source is not available through my university's library, the second is however. [QUOTE]In either case, you are skewering the studies to be for your specific point, but neither of them support your end game argument that gay sex and gay love is a negative thing deemed a sin.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to say they are, all that is revealed by the studies I linked is that homosexually active people are more likely to have STDs and psychiatric disorders. So, in encouraging people to engage in such a lifestyle, you are indirectly encouraging them to be at higher risk of said problems. [QUOTE]AIDS has a higher chance of spreading through anal sex, holy shit a virus evolved to best exploit a natural orifice of the body in a natural function of said orifice as we see it repeated in nature, that being said, the risk is purely statistical and is not from "being" gay. The risks are mitigatable and avoidable with safe practices and you wholly ignore that by skewering that statistic.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to ignore the fact that the risks are avoidable, simply that despite that fact there is still a significant risk when engaging in such behaviours. My position is purely from a behavioural standpoint, I'm not trying to say that being gay in itself is what puts you at risk here. [QUOTE]As far as mental health goes, I've already given you one link, but age does actually have quite a bit to do with things in the field of science as old theories and ideas and evidence give way to new evidence and models. With mental health, there are a great deal of factors to consider, so many so, that one might be irresponsible to blame their mental health issues on the gay sex and gay love in their lives as it would be inaccurate, and not even a well thought out summation of the problems faced by gay people to this very day.[/QUOTE] The second source in the page you posted broaches this subject, granted to a lesser extent. Its sample only has around 500 gay men and most of them are middle class and white, while it does reveal some vital information about how AID's diagnosis and support is dealt with among the given demographic, it does not try to get a general picture of mental health across the gay community in a tolerant environment (unlike the study I posted). So the two aren't really comparable. As for methods of determining mental health, how much could they have changed since 2001? Is there a contradictory study that is more recent and uses better methods than the one I posted? I will admit that when it comes to mental health I am not necessarily pinning the problem on the activity of sex, but on the broader environment that embracing a homosexual lifestyle entails.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46369675]I'm not trying to say they are, all that is revealed by the studies I linked is that homosexually active people are more likely to have STDs and psychiatric disorders. So, in encouraging people to engage in such a lifestyle, you are indirectly encouraging them to be at higher risk of said problems.[/QUOTE] It doesn't look like you took any time at all to read that CDC page. This is from the second paragraph: "Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but homophobia, stigma, and discrimination have negative effects on the health of MSM, lesbians, and other sexual minorities. The negative effects of social marginalization can be found in adolescent and adult MSM, for example, research has shown that MSM and other members of the LGBT community are at increased risk for a number of mental health problems." So no, "encouraging people to engage in such a lifestyle" (as if your encouragement means anything to someone's sexual orientation) would not result in increased mental problems. In fact, giving encouragement to gay people and making them feel normal will eliminate any correlation with mental illness that may exist, because all of it seems to stem from homophobia in the first place.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46371271]It doesn't look like you took any time at all to read that CDC page. This is from the second paragraph: "Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but homophobia, stigma, and discrimination have negative effects on the health of MSM, lesbians, and other sexual minorities. The negative effects of social marginalization can be found in adolescent and adult MSM, for example, research has shown that MSM and other members of the LGBT community are at increased risk for a number of mental health problems."[/QUOTE] I did read the page, I however cannot access the paper that is being used as the source of that statement (it appears that you did not read my post). However, the study I posted on mental health completely contradicts those claims as it shows that even in a very tolerant environment the gay community still has higher rates of psychological disorders. [editline]blah[/editline] Just found a physical copy registered in my uni's library catalogue, for some reason it does not offer access to the electronic copy... odd. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance.
okay, so you think that because there's signs of damage from supportive areas in the world, that the damage gay people undergo in their normal lives in places less tolerant of that are proof, in some weird way, that gay people are just more susceptible to mental illnesses.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46374691]okay, so you think that because there's signs of damage from supportive areas in the world, that the damage gay people undergo in their normal lives in places less tolerant of that are proof, in some weird way, that gay people are just more susceptible to mental illnesses.[/QUOTE] No, I think the fact that psychological disorders are more prevalent among the gay community regardless of the level of intolerance around them is a result of the kind of social environment (the same-sex couple) they seek out. There is reason to believe that these households as a whole are more prone to instability, thus creating more psychological tension for the people within. I understand that the Regnerus study is extremely unpopular to most people in favor of same-sex marriage, but before you criticize it I suggest that you listen to what he himself has to say on the subject: [url]http://ec.libsyn.com/p/a/3/9/a396b9a89b16d2c9/Jun14_13.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06c9833fd1cf5fc0d0&c_id=5772579[/url] (just noticed that i had posted the q & a after the talk, while still insightful, here is the actual presentation) [url]http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/b/4/5/b45dff1e2508540c/Jun14qa_13.mp3?c_id=5772597&expiration=1414526649&hwt=8b58eeef3b2fdaa569b29d1fec149218[/url] His study is meant to get a sense of what same-sex relationships overall are like, he did not attempt to compare the results from the dysfunctional relationships with those of successful middle class couples that have been together for a long period of time (he simply reveals that those kinds of relationships are probably a very small minority). The only valid criticism out there has been about his nomenclature of certain variables that could lead to some misinterpreting his study (which unfortunately a lot of people have). So with the above in mind, Regnerus' New Family Structure's study supports the claim that same-sex households are unstable: [url]http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_july_2012_ssr.pdf[/url]
"The only valid criticism" and who are you exactly to determine what a valid criticism is? You switch between studies of different cultures, and still ignore the lasting effects of early hatred towards homosexuals that most middle age, and slightly younger(mid 20's) would have faced and would have had serious lasting impacts on their later in life mental health states. Either you accept that your study here that you're willfully ignoring their histories and time periods that these relationships existed in as homosexuality as a whole has really only been raising up in mainstream thought as being normal and acceptable for the last 10 years, before that it was a slow slog through the hatred towards them they received from many people, or I really can't see your arguments without your bias being all over it, intentional or not. [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] Let me just say that there are plenty of "Valid criticisms" of his study. You not acknowledging that doesn't change reality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46381091]"The only valid criticism" and who are you exactly to determine what a valid criticism is?[/QUOTE] Someone who's looked at the criticisms in light of what the study is about? [QUOTE]You switch between studies of different cultures, and still ignore the lasting effects of early hatred towards homosexuals that most middle age, and slightly younger(mid 20's) would have faced and would have had serious lasting impacts on their later in life mental health states. Either you accept that your study here that you're willfully ignoring their histories and time periods that these relationships existed in as homosexuality as a whole has really only been raising up in mainstream thought as being normal and acceptable for the last 10 years, before that it was a slow slog through the hatred towards them they received from many people, or I really can't see your arguments without your bias being all over it, intentional or not.[/QUOTE] It's true, these studies represent entirely different populations, unfortunately the limited number of research papers that are at this scale makes it difficult to get a full picture of the situation. However, the study on mental health reveals that even in a tolerant environment there is a disparity in mental health between the gays and heterosexuals. Yes you cannot translate that to the North America for sure, it's simply a piece of evidence in favor of my position. The NFSS study finds that (granted in a more hostile environment) same-sex households are prone to instability. Yes my conclusions isn't hard fact, but you can make a reasonable extrapolation that at least shows that we should slow down in our blind optimism and think about what we're doing (and definitely research it more at larger scales). [QUOTE]Let me just say that there are plenty of "Valid criticisms" of his study. You not acknowledging that doesn't change reality.[/QUOTE] I'd like to note that you just implied I have no right to determine what counts as valid criticism of the study and yet you make use of that very right here.
saying there are possible valid criticisms is not comparable to saying you know the one and only true/valid criticism. We'll see when we revist studies like these in 20 years when openly accepted gay couples have raised their own children. and then we'll see again in 20 years after that when those children have reached their 40's.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46381321]saying there are possible valid criticisms is not comparable to saying you know the one and only true/valid criticism.[/QUOTE] If you simply meant to say there are possible valid criticisms, then I suppose there's nothing I can say against that as anything can have possible valid criticisms. In looking at the criticisms of the study's methods I have only found arguments sprouting from misinformation and accusations of academic misconduct based on over interpretations of vague statements. [QUOTE]We'll see when we revist studies like these in 20 years when openly accepted gay couples have raised their own children. and then we'll see again in 20 years after that when those children have reached their 40's.[/QUOTE] Well, the least I can ask is that the debate remain open as time passes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.