(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
I still do not understand why you deleted those arguments. It is normal that there are more studies that contradict each other, but that doesn't mean that the argument as such is invalid. Neither would it be invalid if some authority denied it, because the whole point of debating is looking at both sides all the time and explaining data and statistics, instead of blindly relying on them. Don't you think?
Lenka, 17:46, 30th May 2010
You do not underestand. There is none study contradicting other: "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf You simply cannot imply results of research on opposite-sex parents to same-sex family, since it is illogical and lead to invalid arguments. --Destinero 01:35, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Welcome and deletion policy
Hi Destinero and welcome to the community. Yeah, I had to rollback your deletion of the arguments on the Debate: Gay marriage article. It's fine that you disagree with the argument and think that it's invalid, but others think that the argument is valid. You need to flush out your disagreement through a counter-argument that describes why you think the other argument is invalid. In some cases, there are wholly invalid arguments that are entirely factually inaccurate, but this is not one of them, as it is a matter of opinion as to whether biological parents may be better parents. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Some more comments
Your edits and arguments, though, are generally very good. Don't be turned off by our deletion policies. We hope you'll stick around. We could really use your clearly strong editorial abilities. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:57, 1 June 2010 (EDT)