What are your unpopular opinions?

• I Wear Pants

  gut;1484764 wrote:1) By "overwhelming consensus" I assume you mean liberals. I'm not sure we have enough history and data to reach that conclusion.
  
  2) I believe a strong mother and father figure is superior. I believe there's value to growing up in a household with both. That's not saying same-sex couples aren't good enough or that kids can't have good outcomes. If we want to talk about diversity (which we seem to place a lot of value on), the traditional couple is inherently more diverse in many regards. I think it's a more optimal situation, all else equal.

  By "overwhelming consensus" I mean every study I've ever seen that wasn't related to a religious or conservative group.
  
  Why do you believe a "strong" mother and father figure is superior? Is it based on any data or just feelings?
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484764 wrote:I believe there's value to growing up in a household with both.

  I think the only empirical evidence that exists is the value of growing up in a household with 2 parents versus 1 parent.
  
  I have no problem with same sex couples adopting as long as they're properly vetted to make good parents, just like any other adopting couple would be.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1484767 wrote:By "overwhelming consensus" I mean every study I've ever seen that wasn't related to a religious or conservative group.
  
  Why do you believe a "strong" mother and father figure is superior? Is it based on any data or just feelings?

  The vast majority of these studies suffer a few problems:
  1) Having a gay parent but still raised in a traditional household is not the same
  2) Nearly all these studies lack a proper sample size.
  3) The relevant issue in giving preference to traditional couples is not whether gay adoptive parents are as good as average families, but whether they are as good as traditional adoptive couples. There's a selection bias there because adoptive couples are pre-screened, so you expect at least an average outcome if your screening procedures are worth a damn. So you have to compare apples to apples, and that's where really you lack sufficient history and sample size.
  
  As for "every study you've ever seen", try reading this one. I'm sure you'll claim "it's related to a conservative group". That's a BS cop-out from people who don't like an outcome they can't otherwise refut - attack a study for on its merits. How many of the studies you're relying on aren't related to liberal groups?
  http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
  
  
• dlazz

  gut;1484769 wrote:
  As for "every study you've ever seen", try reading this one. I'm sure you'll claim "it's related to a conservative group".

  A Christian* conservative group.
  
  And it's not BS, it's just a biased source
• Heretic

  

  gut;1484769 wrote:As for "every study you've ever seen", try reading this one. I'm sure you'll claim "it's related to a conservative group". That's a BS cop-out from people who don't like an outcome they can't otherwise refut - attack a study for on its merits. How many of the studies you're relying on aren't related to liberal groups?
  http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
  
  

  True. Because I've never seen anyone on this site ever see a link and simply dismiss it because it came from that damn "liberal media".
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1484767 wrote: Why do you believe a "strong" mother and father figure is superior? Is it based on any data or just feelings?

  Should we discuss "fatherless" kids growing up in the inner city? Do you really think there's no value to having a strong male and female influence in your household? Why do we talk about diversity so much, but suddenly it doesn't matter when talking about two parents wanting to adopt a child?
  
  It's based on nature, it's based on common sense. It's based on a sense of how our society values diversity, values male & female influence and roles. Show me the data that says it's not. I don't believe there's enough data at this point to conclude otherwise, not to mention the inherent difficulty in measuring this factor in the first place.
  
  I didn't say gay couples shouldn't adopt, I said all else equal I think a traditional couple is more optimal. When I say common sense I'd just ask this question: Do you think any kids raised by gay couples never regret not having a mommy or daddy? If that answer is >0, then I am correct.
• gut

  dlazz;1484770 wrote:A Christian* conservative group.
  
  And it's not BS, it's just a biased source

  So if it's not BS, then the source doesn't matter does it? Would it be unfair to say that a conservative group might need to fund a study for us to get an actual objective study if hordes of others are in fact funded by liberals and junk science?
  
  Truly biased studies tend to practice junk science to reach a predetermined conclusion, and they are usually pretty easy to refute. But the worst form of bias you rarely see - which are studies that refute or fail to reach that predetermined conclusion (such studies usually get buried). And quite honestly, the liberal media shares a lot of junk science because there's no standard for what advances their agenda.
  
  Like I said, refute the study or accept it. If it's biased, you can punch holes in it.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Pick6;1484760 wrote:Wasnt aware churches are forced to marry minorities. Being a different race doesnt exclude you from being in any type of religion (to my knowledge).

  Not a lawyer, perhaps ishlep can comment, but I dont think a church can turn down marrying ppl in their congregation because they're African American or Hispanic. Also it would be much more controversial to turn down a minority than it would be a homosexual which IMO is a bunch of BS.
• Pick6

  

  Commander of Awesome;1484774 wrote:Not a lawyer, perhaps ishlep can comment, but I dont think a church can turn down marrying ppl in their congregation because they're African American or Hispanic. Also it would be much more controversial to turn down a minority than it would be a homosexual which IMO is a bunch of BS.

  Gotcha. I get what you're saying, I just never thought of it as an issue due to the fact that Christianity, or any religion, isn't limited to just one race. Maybe it was an issue when the country was segregated.
• LJ

  

  Commander of Awesome;1484744 wrote:Churches are all about the all mighty dollar, trust me they want the money from gay marriages.
  
  Also how do you feel about churches being forced to marry African Americans or other minorities? No difference IMO.

  
  I didn't know any churches believed that being a certain race is a sin.
• lhslep134

  

  Commander of Awesome;1484774 wrote:Not a lawyer, perhaps ishlep can comment, but I dont think a church can turn down marrying ppl in their congregation because they're African American or Hispanic

  Because I haven't read any case-law on that specific issue in any of my classes so I don't know for certain, but without looking your post sounds right.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  LJ;1484783 wrote:I didn't know any churches believed that being a certain race is a sin.

  By this fail logic, then the church shouldn't marry anyone bc everyone has sinned. In fact homosexual sex is up there with adultery, not above it. Fail on churches.
• dlazz

  gut;1484773 wrote:Truly biased studies tend to practice junk science to reach a predetermined conclusion, and they are usually pretty easy to refute.

  You're right, it is. The backbone of your article is citing a research project from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor at the University of Texas. The American Sociological Association analyzed the research project biased article you put up there and concluded that:
  
  

  • He did not study children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, only those who seem to recollect one of their parents ever having a same-sex relationship.
  • He compared that group, most of which had experienced family dissolution, only to stable, married, opposite-sex families — i.e. he compared unstable to intact.
  • He ignored whether the children lived with or were raised by the parents who had a same-sex relationship.
  • He only identified these “gay” parents based on the recollection of the children, not based on how the parents actually identify or live their lives.
  • Most of the factors Regnerus analyzes were adult outcomes, not childhood outcomes, and could very well have had nothing to do with the relationships of the children’s parents.

  Guess who is a member of the ASA? Mark Regnerus.
  
  You know what else makes it biased? The fact that the study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute, which is a conservative think-tank heavily influenced by religious ideas.
  
  And guess what makes that even more biased? The Witherspoon Institute is opposed to same-sex marriage.
  
  Click that Witherspoon Insitute link to read some lulz regarding the laughable study you're trying to stand on.
• gut

  dlazz;1484788 wrote:You're right, it is. The backbone of your article is citing a research project from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor at the University of Texas. The American Sociological Association analyzed the research project biased article you put up there and concluded that

  I'm just going to post the audit conducted by the journal in question. Neither they, nor the Univ of Texas, found evidence of bias in the research. Like I said, claims of bias are relied on to attack and proclaim as false that which there is merely disagreement upon. There are often disagreements over methodology and sampling, but anyone who is going to rely on or bolster their disagreement by claiming the researcher is biased is immediately suspect themselves as bias.
  
  Like I said, it's a difficult topic and it has flaws, like almost all the research on this subject. But it's a far cry from the "laughable study" you make it out to be. You are pretty clearly more biased - how many times can you mention Witherspoon - than this research piece was concluded to be. I'm sorry, I'm sure it's convenient to dismiss due to politics that what you disagree with, but reality is EVERYONE has leanings and biases and that DOES NOT by default invalidate their research.
  
  The money line:
  "It is obvious from Sherkat’s audit that he does not think either paper should have been published. Fair enough, but other members of the SSR Editorial Board served as referees for the paper and came to quite a different conclusion, as did the four other well-credentialed and widely-respected “super-star” referees who also recommended publication."
  
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12001640
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "I didn't say gay couples shouldn't adopt, I said all else equal I think a traditional couple is more optimal."
  
  Not only do I agree with this, but common law agrees with it as well in the best interests of the children. I don't know why people are so stuck on stupid about adoption, but the reality is that adoption is difficult, expensive and there are thousands of wealthy man/woman households willing to adopt. The idea that we have thousands of kids living in orphanages is a myth from Dickensian novels.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  And to my earlier point, it is moot. A birthmother can decide who the adoptive parents are for any or no reason (currently). She can certainly discriminate on any matter - including race.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  lhslep134;1484784 wrote:Because I haven't read any case-law on that specific issue in any of my classes so I don't know for certain, but without looking your post sounds right.

  It is a murky issue. Generally if churches offer their services for "business" to the general public then they are subject to regular anti-discrimination laws applicable to "businesses." Probably some courts have given them more leeway with respect to whether they are offering to the general public, especially if they have certain rules and requirements for non-members of the church.
  
  I'm not sure what COA's thinking when he says the churches are in it for the money unless they are hosting the reception and providing the food/drinks/etc., which isn't the case in 90% of the weddings I've attended. In most of them you borrow the facility for the service for a few hundred dollars, and have the reception elsewhere. In every "full church" wedding I've attended, the couple were members and the reception hall had a potluck or similar type of food and typically (unfortunately) no alcohol or general dancing. In those cases it would be very difficult to bring any type of discrimination suit, based on race or sexual orientation, as it is a private matter and the state has no grounds to intervene.
• dlazz

  gut;1484826 wrote:But it's a far cry from the "laughable study" you make it out to be.

  No, it isn't. But that's okay, since this is an "unpopular opinions" thread, meaning you're OK to be wrong.
• Sage

  

  My unpopular opinion is that 95% of the posters on this forum have piles of dog shit where their brains are supposed to be, and I'm somewhat impressed they have the mental complexity to keep a job that pays enough to pay internet bills.
• reclegend22

  

  Even as a staunch conservative, I believe that the war on drugs needs to be halted immediately and most, though not all, drugs legalized. The war on drugs is a futile effort, a drain of our financial resources and has never demonstrated even a modicum of success. It's time to put it to an end. It's not that I am in support of drugs as much as I am in support of the freedom to choose to use them. Personally, if cocaine were readily available, it's not something I would choose to do for fun.
  
  There are admittedly certain varieties of drugs, such as Angel Dust, that have no place in society. So a "dangerous drugs" exception would have to be made for such chemicals. But the more naturally-derived drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other painkillers -- should be legal, at least in small amounts. As long as they are given the same restrictions of use that are placed on alcohol -- such as not being able to drive while on them, etc. -- I see no problem with it. Heroin, for instance, was legal for over-the-counter purchase in the U.S. until almost the 1930s and is still used effectively today as a legally prescribed treatment for severe pain in the U.K., often preferred over morphine due to a lower overall side effect profile. So there are also benefits to many of these banned drugs.
• Sage

  

  wow the duke guy is a staunch conservative, consider me fucking shocked
• Rotinaj

  

  Sage;1484982 wrote:My unpopular opinion is that 95% of the posters on this forum have piles of dog shit where their brains are supposed to be, and I'm somewhat impressed they have the mental complexity to keep a job that pays enough to pay internet bills.

  Mental capacity.
• goosebumps

  

  Abortion should be legal... as long as its followed by sterilization.
  
  Drunk driving should have stiffer penalties.
  
  Everyone should have to pay taxes. The bottom feeders like to talk about the rich not paying their "fair share" while they pay zero income taxes
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "heroin and other painkillers -- should be legal, at least in small amounts"
  
  Yeahhhhhhh, I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Opioids are probably the most dangerous drugs available. I'm glad my body didn't take well to painkillers the one time I had surgery. I've had several friends - not drug abusers by any stretch of the imagination - say that they had trouble getting off it. It is highly addictive to many people, and granted no one has ever gone an opioid fused violent streak, but it has cost many people their entire livelihoods.
• reclegend22

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1485001 wrote:"heroin and other painkillers -- should be legal, at least in small amounts"
  
  Yeahhhhhhh, I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Opioids are probably the most dangerous drugs available. I'm glad my body didn't take well to painkillers the one time I had surgery. I've had several friends - not drug abusers by any stretch of the imagination - say that they had trouble getting off it. It is highly addictive to many people, and granted no one has ever gone an opioid fused violent streak, but it has cost many people their entire livelihoods.

  While painkillers can certainly lead to debilitating addictions, they are actually among the safest drugs known to man. Unlike alcohol or even mild benzodiazipines such as valium, withdrawing from painkillers will not kill you. Alcohol is a much more dangerous substance with regard to addiction. Stopping it abruptly can kill you.
  
  Now, is it easier to become addicted to painkillers than alcohol? I'm not a scientist, but I would say yes. I take vicodin and Tylenol 4 quite frequently and I can attest that it would be a struggle to stop them abruptly and never go back. To put it frankly, they are good. But so is tequila, and most people don't have a tequila addiction. I guess I just think that it should be up to the individual if they want to go down that road and experiment with their body. As long as it is not dangerous to others (i.e. PCP).
  
  The War on Drugs, however, is worthless. It is a losing battle.