Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Is Wikipedia a professional site?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.

"Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions are not supported by scientific research literature. There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. Much research has documented the lack of correlation between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents influences the well-being of the child. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would present more poorly regardless of the type of sample. This pattern has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents are worse off than the children of heterosexual parents." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

I ask even the SSM supporters- does this sound professional at all to you?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:40:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could have a completely professional site that is totally biased. It's important to make a distinction between "professional" and "objective."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
More fun stuff.

"Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise, and concluded that the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

And from the same page,

"Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents."

Then repeated itself.

"The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

I think that this kind of says something about the credibility of these claims and Wikipedia in general.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:34:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
No.

"Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions are not supported by scientific research literature. There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. Much research has documented the lack of correlation between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents influences the well-being of the child. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would present more poorly regardless of the type of sample. This pattern has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents are worse off than the children of heterosexual parents." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

I ask even the SSM supporters- does this sound professional at all to you?

The extensive research supporting gay adoption? Exactly when did this 'extensive' research take place? How long have they had case studies after gays were allowed to adopt? And how long does it take for the adopted child to mature into adulthood? Kind of hard to determine anything in a concept that is so new to society. Sure, you can have a handful of case studies, but there haven't been enough cases to study to find any real proof supporting either side.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.

From what I saw, the page on evolution was a lot more professional and even listed some creationist objections.

And I really don't trust those "facts."
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:03:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:50:13 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.

From what I saw, the page on evolution was a lot more professional and even listed some creationist objections.

Actually, that page is pretty biased because the facts themselves are biased.

And I really don't trust those "facts."

So what do you trust? Blind faith to a superficial genocidal megalomaniacal misogynistic diety instead of observable evidence through repeat conduction of experiments?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:12:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:03:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:50:13 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.

From what I saw, the page on evolution was a lot more professional and even listed some creationist objections.

Actually, that page is pretty biased because the facts themselves are biased.

That's not what I meant... it just mentioned them, it never gave them any sort of credence.

And I really don't trust those "facts."

So what do you trust? Blind faith to a superficial genocidal megalomaniacal misogynistic diety instead of observable evidence through repeat conduction of experiments?

What the fuck is a "diety?"
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:30:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:12:44 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:03:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:50:13 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.

From what I saw, the page on evolution was a lot more professional and even listed some creationist objections.

Actually, that page is pretty biased because the facts themselves are biased.

That's not what I meant... it just mentioned them, it never gave them any sort of credence.

The article on SSM talks about opposing view points:

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are still often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is whether same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion.[171][197][198][199][200][201][202] Some religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples.[203][204] Some governments have made special provisions for religious protections within the texts of same-sex marriage laws.[205]
Pope John Paul II, then head of the Roman Catholic church, criticized same-sex marriage[206] when it was introduced in the Netherlands in 2001. His successor Pope Benedict XVI has maintained opposition to the institution, considering it amongst "the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today".[207][208] In Christian circles, the argument about same-sex marriage hinges upon whether homosexuality itself is a sinful act. Some Mosaic arguments against homosexuality are based upon Bible passages that discuss the fate of Sodom,[209] command that one "not lie with mankind, as with womankind",[210][211][212][213] while others are based upon New Testament passages on topics of people going against "natural use" in their lust,[214] the "unrighteous",[215] and the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.[216][212][213] Some Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage legalization in the United States,[217][218] claiming that marriage, by definition, necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex,[219] and that same-gender sexual activity is contrary to God's will,[220][221][222] immoral,[223] and subverts God's creative intent for human sexuality.[224]
Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have stated that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage by providing legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents, and view their support as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons.[225][226][227] Supporters claim that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts.[228][229] Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant Bible reference works) contain the word "homosexual," and there is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples.[230] Some churches, like the Metropolitan Community Church, believe that the biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship, and lack any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.[231] In 2005, the United Church of Christ (UCC) voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to do so.[232] The United Church of Canada states that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God".[233] Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports same-sex marriage,[234] and has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights.[235] The Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only civil partnerships.[236] In addition to the churches already including gays and lesbians in their marriage tradition, others including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Church of Scotland are discussing the issue among their members.[232]
Many Orthodox Jews, including the Rabbinical Council of America[237] maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex,[238] but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree.[239] In the Australian Jewish journal Galus Australis, Rachel Sacks-Davis has criticised Orthodox rabbis who have come out against same-sex civil marriage, stating that these rabbis have failed to grasp the concept of separation between church and state.[240] Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage.[241] The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.[242] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.[243]
From the Islamic perspective, a majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of the prophet Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties where the man offers protection and security in return for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights to the woman, same-sex marriages have not been considered legal within the constraints of Muslim marriage.[244]
Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.[245] Many Wiccan communities are supportive of same-sex marriages, but as Wicca is a non-dogmatic and non-monolithic religious movement, there is no unity of opinion or official position on the subject.[246][247]

And I really don't trust those "facts."

So what do you trust? Blind faith to a superficial genocidal megalomaniacal misogynistic diety instead of observable evidence through repeat conduction of experiments?

What the fuck is a "diety?"

Misspelling of "deity."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:30:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:12:44 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:03:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:50:13 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:42:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, life is a b!tch when all the facts are against your position. Perhaps now you might experience the hardship, toil, and plight of the creationists.

From what I saw, the page on evolution was a lot more professional and even listed some creationist objections.

Actually, that page is pretty biased because the facts themselves are biased.

That's not what I meant... it just mentioned them, it never gave them any sort of credence.

The article on SSM talks about opposing view points:

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are still often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is whether same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion.[171][197][198][199][200][201][202] Some religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples.[203][204] Some governments have made special provisions for religious protections within the texts of same-sex marriage laws.[205]
Pope John Paul II, then head of the Roman Catholic church, criticized same-sex marriage[206] when it was introduced in the Netherlands in 2001. His successor Pope Benedict XVI has maintained opposition to the institution, considering it amongst "the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today".[207][208] In Christian circles, the argument about same-sex marriage hinges upon whether homosexuality itself is a sinful act. Some Mosaic arguments against homosexuality are based upon Bible passages that discuss the fate of Sodom,[209] command that one "not lie with mankind, as with womankind",[210][211][212][213] while others are based upon New Testament passages on topics of people going against "natural use" in their lust,[214] the "unrighteous",[215] and the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.[216][212][213] Some Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage legalization in the United States,[217][218] claiming that marriage, by definition, necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex,[219] and that same-gender sexual activity is contrary to God's will,[220][221][222] immoral,[223] and subverts God's creative intent for human sexuality.[224]
Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have stated that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage by providing legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents, and view their support as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons.[225][226][227] Supporters claim that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts.[228][229] Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant Bible reference works) contain the word "homosexual," and there is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples.[230] Some churches, like the Metropolitan Community Church, believe that the biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship, and lack any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.[231] In 2005, the United Church of Christ (UCC) voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to do so.[232] The United Church of Canada states that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God".[233] Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports same-sex marriage,[234] and has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights.[235] The Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only civil partnerships.[236] In addition to the churches already including gays and lesbians in their marriage tradition, others including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Church of Scotland are discussing the issue among their members.[232]
Many Orthodox Jews, including the Rabbinical Council of America[237] maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex,[238] but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree.[239] In the Australian Jewish journal Galus Australis, Rachel Sacks-Davis has criticised Orthodox rabbis who have come out against same-sex civil marriage, stating that these rabbis have failed to grasp the concept of separation between church and state.[240] Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage.[241] The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.[242] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.[243]
From the Islamic perspective, a majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of the prophet Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties where the man offers protection and security in return for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights to the woman, same-sex marriages have not been considered legal within the constraints of Muslim marriage.[244]
Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.[245] Many Wiccan communities are supportive of same-sex marriages, but as Wicca is a non-dogmatic and non-monolithic religious movement, there is no unity of opinion or official position on the subject.[246][247]

Traditionalists: "Same-sex marriage is wrong! It ruins straight marriage!"

Gay supporters: "No, see the Bible didn't really condemn homosexuality! We have all the evidence! Look, even religious organizations are joining our side!"

Clearly not biased at all.

And I really don't trust those "facts."

So what do you trust? Blind faith to a superficial genocidal megalomaniacal misogynistic diety instead of observable evidence through repeat conduction of experiments?

What the fuck is a "diety?"

Misspelling of "deity."

Ah. Figures, Mr. Lordknuckle
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By definition it isn't professional. People don't get paid to contribute. I did see some kind of study or analysis somewhere saying that it was almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia, in most cases.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:00:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:44:39 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Traditionalists: "Same-sex marriage is wrong! It ruins straight marriage!"

Gay supporters: "No, see the Bible didn't really condemn homosexuality! We have all the evidence! Look, even religious organizations are joining our side!"

Clearly not biased at all.

Is there something you'd rather have it say instead?
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 1:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:00:37 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:44:39 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Traditionalists: "Same-sex marriage is wrong! It ruins straight marriage!"

Gay supporters: "No, see the Bible didn't really condemn homosexuality! We have all the evidence! Look, even religious organizations are joining our side!"

Clearly not biased at all.

Is there something you'd rather have it say instead?

No, don't you remember? He doesn't trust the 'facts'. Indecision is the game to play.
turn down for h'what
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 12:38:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was going to debate this with Danielle, but she forfeited. I'm going to do it again one of these days, and then we'll see who has the "facts" on their side. I'm really not at all scared to do it with anyone.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 3:11:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 12:38:39 AM, MouthWash wrote:
I was going to debate this with Danielle, but she forfeited. I'm going to do it again one of these days, and then we'll see who has the "facts" on their side. I'm really not at all scared to do it with anyone.

Accept Microsuck's evolution debate.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 2:07:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 3:11:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/3/2012 12:38:39 AM, MouthWash wrote:
I was going to debate this with Danielle, but she forfeited. I'm going to do it again one of these days, and then we'll see who has the "facts" on their side. I'm really not at all scared to do it with anyone.

Accept Microsuck's evolution debate.

What? I believe in evolution...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 2:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 12:38:39 AM, MouthWash wrote:
I was going to debate this with Danielle, but she forfeited. I'm going to do it again one of these days, and then we'll see who has the "facts" on their side. I'm really not at all scared to do it with anyone.

It's really easy to debate your side. Mainly because all former SSP studies are flawed until July 2012.

And those studies avoided all the errors the others had and concluded gays are insufficient parents.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 2:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 1:01:52 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:00:37 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:44:39 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Traditionalists: "Same-sex marriage is wrong! It ruins straight marriage!"

Gay supporters: "No, see the Bible didn't really condemn homosexuality! We have all the evidence! Look, even religious organizations are joining our side!"

Clearly not biased at all.

Is there something you'd rather have it say instead?

No, don't you remember? He doesn't trust the 'facts'. Indecision is the game to play.

Because that's not why we oppose gay marriage.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross