Big Nana,

Here are some links from independent analysis of
the Mark Regnerus study that you cited:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-faulty-gay-arenting-study

http://thinkprogress.org/mark-regnerus-admits-his-family-structures-study-wasn-t-about-gay-parenting-554420fd83ea/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.6ccbcc5a7e38

Big Nana,

The methodology used by the articles I linked to directly was sound, as far as I can tell (and I have studied and applied research methods at university).

<<… they are based on very flimsy, and subjective data and none of the studies would have passed any scientific requirements for a reputable study.>>

Do you have an example of this? The article mhaze linked to earlier was terrible, and cited an article that you too have relied on, which was fundamentally flawed.

<<… go check out the methodology of the studies. You will find that they are mainly small, not random selected, do not have appropriate control groups and do not have measurable outcomes.>>

It doesn’t sound like you’re talking about the studies that I linked to. Their samples were small-ish, which they noted. However, that’s not always avoidable, depending on the data that is being collected.

<<They took a small group of 7 year olds and asked them about how happy they were, about how many friends they had, about how happy they were with their parents, about how did they like school etc!>>

Could you link me to this article please?

<< Most of the studies are based on questionaires given to volunteer lesbian mothers, with no measurable outcomes.>>

With NO measurable outcomes? I’d doubt that.

You make the rest sound so bad and so deliberate. Did the researchers perhaps have feasibility restraints (e.g. ethical, practical, financial)? They’ll usually note this.

<<The only very large study done that is random, huge, has control groups and measurable outcomes is the one done by ALLEN, in Canada, on hignschool graduation rates of children from all different family types. >>

That study was fatally flawed. The researcher included children who were yet to graduate. The problem here was that the children of the families from same-sex-parented households had a lower average age.

But, as I have pointed out a few times here now, none of this is an argument against same-sex marriage. Indeed, if you are right, then it is an argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

Big Nana,

My apologies for the typo in the amy davidson link I
cited earlier. Here it is again:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study

AJ Philips wrote:
“You don’t see the glaring contradiction in your post?”

What I see is a people who conflate equality with eligibility.
Perhaps they don’t have a dictionary.

AJ Philips wrote:
“If gay people are equal, then they should be treated equally.”

They are.

AJ Philips wrote:
“And why is that? Because they’re not a male and a female? Why is that a reason?”

Yes, that’s right. Eligibility.
It’s exactly the same reasoning used to qualify people for mixed doubles tennis. No outrage there, then?
Eligibility is a criteria used far and wide in society.

Eligibility is the reason I, as a male, can’t join Fernwood Fitness.
Eligibility is the reason the Govt. discriminate against me accessing some of their services.
Eligibility is the reason I was called up for National Service.
Eligibility is the reason same sex couples don’t qualify for marriage.
Eligibility is the reason polygamists don’t qualify for marriage.

“Marriage equality” is the red herring argument.

SteeleRedux,
Homosexual = one who engages in sex with a person of the same gender; by males in anal which is socially unclean. This is outlawed in both OT and NT as a practise within the Church community. Some Church communities have abandoned the Biblical teaching, so have abandoned the biological design of Creator God.

In the Biblical text man and woman were designed for each other, and this is borne out in their biological design.

Dear Josephus,

Same-sex marriage is not about religion or
religious beliefs. It's about marriage -
which is a social institution and in this
country its a secular contract presided over
by the government. Like taxes. It was the
government who changed the Marriage Act.
They can quite easily fix it. You are
entitled to your religious beliefs - of
course but you are not entitled to impose
them on anyone else.