Foxy wrote:
“Same-sex marriage is not about religion or
religious beliefs. It's about marriage - which is a social institution […]”

Yep. I’m an atheist so don’t give two hoots about the religious angle.

From what I’ve gathered, religious people don’t see it that way.
For them, the religious component holds primacy and the legal aspect is secondary. Presumably, they see the social contract flowing from the religious and since this flow is of no interest to many, it doesn’t get contested.
Happy to be corrected by the religious.

One other point I’d note, regarding this study that has same-sex marriage opponents wetting themselves with excitement, is that nowhere does it mention the limitations of the research, or the conflict of interest on the author’s behalf - who is an active campaigner against marriage equality. To the author’s credit, however, he acknowledges that the study is not enough to establish a causal link.

Again, though, not that it makes any difference to the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. If anything, it is evidence in favour of marriage equality.

--

Dustin,

Well, there is significant overlap there.

<<What I see is a people who conflate equality with eligibility.>>

And why should same-sex couples be ineligible to marry?

<<They are [treated equally].>>

No, they’re not. They’re not allowed to marry.

<<Yes, that’s right. Eligibility.>>

Eligibility, in itself, is not a reason. You need to explain why they should not be eligible. Otherwise, you’re just engaging in circular reasoning.

<<It’s exactly the same reasoning used to qualify people for mixed doubles tennis.>>

That has to do with balancing competition. This is a false analogy, as are your other analogies.

<<“Marriage equality” is the red herring argument.>>

You have not demonstrated this.

Dear Josephus,

Both the Old and New testaments condone and set rules for slavery;

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Exodus 21:20-21

Eph 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart

1Tim 6:1-2
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor.

Titus 2:9-10
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect

1Pet 2:18
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

There are far more verses regarding this practice than those addressing homosexuality. During the American Civil War the case for slavery was forcefully put from the pulpit quoting these verses. Which side was being the more true to the Bible and which the more christian?

But in most parts of the world we have moved past this terrible mindset.

Further within the Bible the penalties for adultery are in most circumstances as onerous as those for homosexual acts yet you are not calling for the outlawing of divorce.

Finally God is on record of enabling such activity;

“25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”

Big Nana,

What you say on the quality of the studies is very correct. But, alas, quite beside the point. As we've seen over the last decade or so with the climate debate, the point isn't to seek out the truth but to create talking-points (eg the 97% of climate scientists rubbish).

Here also: take the Allen 2013 paper. Since this has a large sample size and clear statistically significant results, it should be persuasive. So how to ignore something you don't want to be true? Well its a well worn path. First someone somewhere finds some minor disputable issue and declares it to be a major fault. Then its written up as proof that the paper is wrong, calling it, in this case, "worthless". Then multiple sites regurgitate that declaration so that when someone like Foxy goes off trying to find out how she can reject what she's already decided to reject, she finds her 'reasons' offered up on a silver platter. Done.

But how valid is the original criticism? AJ has also been trying to find out how he can reject unwanted data and found the original critique - being that the data uses an age range that might include some kids who are yet to reach graduation age. AJ links to the critique which he accepts unquestioningly - why wouldn't he?

The problem is that Allen, the original author, had anticipated these criticisms and addressed them within the actual paper noting that he'd run regression analysis on many different age ranges and came to the same results. This isn't mentioned in the critiques so the AJ's and Foxy's of this world can carry on ignoring what they want to ignore while maintain a veneer of scholarship.

But none of this matters (except to show the quality of research performed by AJ) since the only aim is to get some sort of vaguely convincing critique into the market-place so that good but 'unhelpful' data can be rejected.

/cont
Unfortunately for scientific research, this is increasingly the process, particularly when the issue is politicised. The data and/or the truth don't matter.

And on such flimsy 'evidence' we are about to send society down a path never before traveled, from which there is no reversing and which will be devastating to future generations.

OTOH, if a paper arrives at the 'correct' answer it is touted as incontrovertible truth without the need to check is validity.

AJ "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)."

Well let's look at one of those papers :
Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents (http://goo.gl/8kppjP).

Here we have a paper with a sample size of 44(!) and a control of 44. Now with a sample size of 44 I could probably prove that Coke is a health food. What's worse, the sample is effectively self-selected and was put together for another project - never a good practice. Within the paper they find that there a few statistical differences between the groups but with a sample of 44 it would be astounding to find any such differences. But here's the kicker - this 44 is arrived at by rejecting ALL of the kids with male same-sex parents. The reason they say is to simplify matters because apparently doing calculations on a sample of 50 is so much more complex than doing it on 44. I call BS. We can only speculate why they were rejected but I'd bet they wouldn't have been if they enhanced the results in the 'right' direction.

That AJ thinks this paper has a "sound"methodology says it all.

SteeleRedux,
Obviously you have not worked for a boss [master] and given it your best effort, or had a mortgage for which you are bound by contract to fulfil. That is the word given to followers of Christ working in a secular Roman society.

In Jewish society Joseph was taken a slave in Egypt and Daniel taken a slave in Babylon; they gave it their best effort and were rewarded for it; so should followers of Christ.

In Christian society all are equal male or female, slave or free. In ancient society poor persons owing debt to a person worked it off, if after the debt had been paid they were free, unless they chose to remain in the care of the farm or business owner.