Tampering with the Lock on Pandora’s Box

Tampering with the Lock on Pandora's Box

click on image to enlarge

Same-sex marriage proponents think changing the definition of marriage is a tiny, insignificant action. However, there will be severe, far-reaching consequences should they be successful in the US and around the world…

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “Tampering with the Lock on Pandora’s Box

  1. there will be severe, far-reaching consequences should they be successful…

    Indeed, this would be something to be concerned about… if it were true. But it’s not.

    Where same sex marriage (SSM) is legal, there is no evidence for these concerns coming into being caused by establishing equality rights in marriage. So on what evidence from reality does Josh (and other theists who lead the fight against legal equality) base his claims for social doom caused by SSM?

    That’s what I thought: the doom prophesy is based only on faith-based beliefs unencumbered by reality. This is an example of delusional thinking inspired by religious belief that causes real harm to real people in real life.

    Josh is scaremongering… not because he has any reasons adduced from reality to inform his anti-SSM beliefs in these negative consequence being caused by legalizing SSM but because he fear they might come into being. This is why his faith-based belief stands contrary to the conclusions arrived at by those who study just this sort of causal effect:

    The American Medical Association tells us there is no evidence for these fears to be taken seriously.

    The American Psychiatric Association concurs.

    The American Psychological Association concurs.

    Yet Josh – and many of theists – disagrees. He (and they) disagrees with what the evidence from reality shows these organizations to be true because he (and they) empowers his frightened beliefs from religious revelation to be of greater concern more than he is willing to respect not just the equality rights of others but the role evidence from reality plays in arriving at conclusions… as if to say, “Knowledge for my beliefs? I don’t need no stinkin’ knowledge! I’ve got belief on my side!” Belief in the boogeyman seems quite enough to settle the issue in Josh’s mind (and the minds of other similarly frightened believers). The rights of others do not matter.

    Like

    • Where same sex marriage (SSM) is legal, there is no evidence for these concerns coming into being caused by establishing equality rights in marriage. So on what evidence from reality does Josh (and other theists who lead the fight against legal equality) base his claims for social doom caused by SSM?

      Well, yet another one of your bold assertion without evidence or sources is good enough for me! I change my mind.

      Of course I’m kidding.

      Please do note the disingenuous nature of your comments. You, again, want to make my objection to same-sex marriage merely a religious one. Sadly for you, I didn’t appeal to any religious text or authority. Please keep that in mind as you read (or whatever you do) my comments. Your comment is full of emotive language and hyperbole. You even worked to prove your point by putting words into my mouth. Very interesting. Very disingenuous.

      You can ignore what’s happening in countries where SSM is legal. You can continue to promote SSM. I just find it sadly funny that you are bold enough to make appeals to reality when it is reality itself that indicates the homosexual behavior is unhealthy and unnatural. But your type is impervious to facts and to the legitimate concerns of other people. For example, if I presented arguments that in countries where SSM is legal — a sharp decline in overall marriages; a huge increase of children born out of wedlock; that studies show children of gay couples were more likely to be sexually abused, involved in crime, and so on; etc. — you’d just quote the mantra, “Correlation does not prove causation”. I could point out that the APA’s research methods on this very issue have flaws. You’d say they don’t.

      You often make assertions without references or sources. Ironically, you will accuse those of us who maintain that SSM is bad for society as having no evidence. If we present evidence, we will then be told, “Correlation doesn’t prove causation”. We can point out CDC statistics which indicate that diseases and increased risk of diseases prevalent among homosexuals. The mantra will be repeated. It’s a brilliant scheme! No evidence or information will ever count as evidence against SSM because no evidence could count. So SSM proponents like you remain steadfast in their twisted convictions and hold the rest of us in contempt who don’t accept those conclusions which you already presupposed to be true. Genius!

      So in the spirit of true skepticism, tell us: What evidence would count to show that SSM is bad for society? (I’m not going to let you get away from answering this question.)

      And I’m no longer going to let anti-traditional marriage proponents like yourself (Haha! I can use emotive phrases that start with “anti-“, too!) try to claim this is an issue of “equality”. It’s not. It’s an attempt at normalizing an unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle in the mind of the public.

      But let’s face reality for a bit: You’re not here to hear. You’re here to preach and increase your following.

      Joshua

      Like

      • If someone were afraid of SSM, how would they try to portray this? Well, they would seek perceived negative consequences and attribute them to their supposed cause without linking the effect to it.

        This is exactly what you have done.

        Marriage rates have fallen across all G20 countries. SSM is legal in only some of them. Did SSM cause this decline? If so, how does the rate falling long before SSM became an issue factor in? How does the effect relate to countries with falling rates that do not legally allow SSM? Obviously SSM has nothing to do with these falling rates. They’re not even correlated!

        If marriage rates are falling but birth rates are stable, how difficult is it to grasp that the number of children born out of wedlock might increase? Again, this trend cuts across countries with and without SSM, before and after SSM became an issue.

        The ‘studies’ cited by Regnerus have been thoroughly discredited as very poor studies. The central criticism is that the subjects selected for counting were all from an umbrella group defined by their social problems! Of course any further data is going to reveal these problems but there is no causal link to the attributed effects. This is exactly the methodology you yourself are using to attribute negative consequences to a perceived cause without linking the two. And this is why when the two ARE linked, the data is crystal clear: there is no evidence linking SSM to be the basis for your fears; rather, your fears define what evidence you are willing to attribute to SSM.

        Like

      • No, no. You didn’t answer my question, tildeb. So let me ask it one last time: What evidence would count to show that SSM is bad for society? (Repeat: I’m not going to let you get away from answering this question.)

        Side note:

        The ‘studies’ cited by Regnerus have been thoroughly discredited as very poor studies.

        A four-member group form the University of Texas that was commissioned to audit his research would beg to differ. Their conclusion?

        “After consulting with a four-member advisory panel of senior UT faculty members, [Robert A.] Peterson [a “a research integrity officer in the Office of the Vice President for Research”] found no falsification of data, plagiarism or other serious ethical breaches constituting scientific misconduct.”

        And even 27 scholars signed a joint letter in his defense. Interestingly, that same letter even mentions a curious fact about the instability that is part of most homosexual relationships:

        Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples based on large, random, representative samples from countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples. Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.

        Joshua

        Like

    • Andy, surely a pro-gay blog is no place to find a critical, unbiased record of something on SSM. How do you know they quoted him accurately? Or that they didn’t quote him out of context? Where’s your skepticism, Andy?

      I was interested to see this sentence in the article:

      “An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be ‘bullshit’…”

      When I did a brief inquiry into what internal audit the author of your article was suggesting, I found out that it wasn’t the one done by the University of Texas. In fact, the story he linked to pointed out that the UT audit was still on-going at the time that the article was written. This shows that the author of the classy titled article that you linked to, Journal’s Internal Audit Finds Flawed Gay Parenting Study To Be ‘Bullshit’, came to a conclusion before the official UT audit had been completed, which most reasonable people would call “premature” and the more cynical among us would call “crappy journalism”.

      And did you notice that Regnerus said, “But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them”? And what findings might that be? In part, they include:

      “…the [New Family Structures Study] also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.”

      So it is in the government and the public’s interest to promote and protect marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.

      Joshua

      Like

      • “Andy, surely a pro-gay blog is no place to find a critical, unbiased record of something on SSM”

        Ad hominem. By that logic, why should anyone care what you have to say on the topic, given your own bias?

        “when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father”

        But the study can’t show that they can’t be the same gender to get those benefits, only that it’s best it’s the same two people. No dice, Josh.

        Like

      • Ad hominem. By that logic, why should anyone care what you have to say on the topic, given your own bias?

        Again with the ad hominem?! Is a blog a person now?

        But the study can’t show that they can’t be the same gender to get those benefits, only that it’s best it’s the same two people.

        You forgot to add “in my opinion”. Besides, I noticed you didn’t provide any evidence to the contrary. Why not? SSM has been legal in several countries for about three decades, has it not? Surely there is some data that you could cite to prove your point, no?

        Like

      • That’s point, Josh: there is no evidence considered by the all the professional organizations involved with mental and development health to suggest your fears are warranted. There should be statistically relevant data emerging if any of your fears about the negative effects caused by of SSM were true. This evidence is absent, which is why your fears are groundless scaremongering.

        Like

      • That’s point, Josh: there is no evidence considered by the all the professional organizations involved with mental and development health to suggest your fears are warranted. There should be statistically relevant data emerging if any of your fears about the negative effects caused by of SSM were true. This evidence is absent, which is why your fears are groundless scaremongering.

        I think you’ve misunderstood my comment to Andy, tildeb. I was asking him to cite some data that shows children of same-sex couples could “succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains” as those of heterosexual couples as per this quote from Regnerus’s study:

        “…the [New Family Structures Study] also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

        Like

  2. An interesting article, mentioning both Renerus’ study, and parellels between anti-SSM and anti-interracial marriage proponents: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/03/gay_marriage_at_the_supreme_court_did_interracial_marriage_opponents_claim.html

    “The parallels between the two cases are striking. The defenders of California’s Prop 8 rely heavily on the work of University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, who argued in a 2012 study that the children of people who engage in same-sex relationships have worse psychological, social, and economic outcomes. (The study generated enormous controversy, and its conclusions have been largely rejected by other social scientists.)

    In 1967, the state of Virginia’s expert of choice was Albert Gordon, whose book Intermarriage: Interfaith, Interracial, Interethnic attacked the adequacy of interracial parenting. According to Virginia’s solicitor general Robert McIlwaine, Gordon concluded that interracial marriages “hold no promise for a bright and happy future for mankind” and “bequeath to the progeny of those marriages more psychological problems than the parents have a right to bequeath to them.” Interracial marriage is so undesirable, McIlwaine continued, that its negative effects can’t even be managed. He argued that it “causes a child to have almost insuperable difficulties in identification and that the problems which a child of an interracial marriage faces are those which no child can come through without damage to himself.”

    Virginia didn’t merely critique the parenting skills of interracial couples—the state attacked their very mental stability. Again citing Gordon, McIlwaine claimed that people who have the temerity to engage in interracial marriage have a “rebellious attitude towards society, self-hatred, neurotic tendencies, immaturity, and other detrimental psychological factors.” The implication was that these qualities rendered them unfit parents.”

    Interesting stuff. You asked: “What evidence would count to show that SSM is bad for society? (Repeat: I’m not going to let you get away from answering this question.)”

    Back at you with regards to interracial marriage.

    Like

  3. “SSM has been legal in several countries for about three decades, has it not?”

    You’re the one trying to make the case that it’s been damaging, not me. Are Scandinavian countries hotbeds of teen pregnancy, murder and drug abuse? Nope, they suffer far less than the US on all those things.

    “Again with the ad hominem?!”

    If the cap fits. The merits of the argument offered stand apart from the sexuality of the person or website offering it. You were making an ad hominem argument.

    Like

    • Actually, I hate to bother you with some facts but drug abuse is on the rise in Sweden. Oh, and STDs, too. Oh, and Sweden has the highest rate of rape in all of Europe, one of the highest in the world actually. The study which reached these conclusions cites the following:

      Early sexual debuts, high alcohol consumption, “free sexuality” and the “right to say no” quite simply results in more rapes, the study concludes.

      To be fair, these are problems that plague a lot of countries. I know. They have something in common: When sex becomes a person’s life and sexual intercourse outside of normal, natural marriage becomes just another recreational activity, then you have these sorts of problems. That’s yet another reason marriage between 1 man and 1 woman should be promoted and protected with special rights and privileges. It should be held up as the ideal, since studies show that it works to prevent a host of social problems.

      You said:

      The merits of the argument offered stand apart from the sexuality of the person or website offering it. You were making an ad hominem argument.

      Hmmm. It’s best to first know the bias of the source in order to better analyze the information that we get from them (which is what I hope people do when they get information from me on my little blog here). Besides, I didn’t say anything about the sexuality of the person or web site (didn’t know web sites had sexual preferences, but it is the 21st century…). I merely said they were a pro-gay site. Anyway, I’m not sure if you even read my reply where I pointed out that the author of the article you linked to was premature in his conclusions. The official audit wasn’t completed until a while after his article was posted.

      Like

  4. “You forgot to add “in my opinion”

    No I didn’t. The study doesn’t draw from a data pool to demonstrate it. It would need to compare children from parents in the same situation, differing only by whether they’re the same gender or opposite genders. In other words comparing kids brought up by married straight parents and married SS parents, or kids brought up by unmarried straight parents and unmarried SS parents. Regnerus’s study does not do this.

    Like

  5. “Sweden …”

    Yes, Sweden records rape incidences in a different way to USA, UK etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372

    As for ‘one of the highest in the world’, 63 countries don’t even have records for rape numbers, including South Africa, where 1 in 4 men admit raping (guess whether SSM is legal there. You need to stop uncritically swallowing every stat and study you come across, Josh. Have you actually read up on people’s objections to Regnerus’s methodology? He asked kids ‘Have either of your parents ever had a gay romantic relationship?” And if they said yes, they went in the “Raised by gays” pile. You might as well have asked a bunch of kids raised by gays “Have either of your parents ever had a straight experience?” And if they said yes, you then count that child as having been raised by straight parents. It’s a nonsense, and one you swallow uncritically.

    Yes, it’s good to consider the bias of a source, but you just dismissed out of hand – by that logic I’d dismiss anything you said as it comes from a straight SSM opponent.

    Now, back to your foaming…

    Like

    • Thanks for ignoring the central part of my previous comment. Remember the bit about “[w]hen sex becomes a person’s life and sexual intercourse outside of normal, natural marriage becomes just another recreational activity, then you have these sorts of problems. That’s yet another reason marriage between 1 man and 1 woman should be promoted and protected with special rights and privileges. It should be held up as the ideal, since studies show that it works to prevent a host of social problems”? (That was me acknowledging that SSM isn’t the cause of all evils in the world, as you would like to portray me as saying.)

      RE: The pro-gay blog article

      You presume too much. I appreciate you actually leaving a reference, as sorry as it was. I didn’t dismiss the information right out of hand. I read the article. And the initial level of journalism I suspected from seeing “bullshit” in the title bore out under examination of the facts. Remember the bit about premature conclusion? And why didn’t you respond to the point that the article you posted presented a premature conclusion of Regnerus’s study?

      If you’d like to take issue with one of my references, that’s fine. Regardless, in typical fashion, you’ve avoided answer my questions. Show us some stats or studies that show children of gay parents “succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains”. Also tell us what would count as evidence to show that SSM is bad for society. You don’t accept studies. You don’t accept statistics. I want to know what you and tildeb would accept as evidence since neither of you has answered the question.

      Your turn to foam.

      Like

  6. ” It should be held up as the ideal, since studies show that it works to prevent a host of social problems”

    Yes, studies show marriage has those benefits. No studies show the same benefits only come if the married couple are male/female. Just as Regnerus’ study only shows that kids benefit from having the same two people looking after them, not that that they have to be male/female.

    Like

  7. “If you’d like to take issue with one of my references, that’s fine”

    The stats you gave to back up “the central part of my previous comment” referred to rape levels in Sweden, and for the reasons I gave you, detailed in the link I supplied, the stats simply don’t work to claim Sweden as a ‘rape capital of the world’, any more than Canada’s huge kidnap figures can truthfully allow one to say it is the kidnap capital of the world. Rather than evidence that the phenomena you cite has led to “these sorts of problems” in Sweden, the high reported rape figures in Sweden are actually a result of Swedish authorities taking rape MORE seriously, and so reporting it in a more rigorous fashion, such that they would count as ten, fifty or hundred separate rape incidences what would be counted as just one in America or the UK.

    “You don’t accept studies.”

    I’ve explained the problems with the study you cited*, and I’ve explained how the study could have been improved – taking him closer to providing “evidence to show that SSM is bad for society” – so it’s simply not true for you to say “you’ve avoided answer my questions”. If I have time I’ll happily go into greater detail the problems with Regnerus’ study (I was interrupted in the middle of going into it last time, so had to post as was, but I certainly listed enough fatal errors in the sampling, as did Tildeb. And googling the name of the study brings up many results that go into far greater detail).

    And the burden of proof is with you to show SSM creates difficulties, not with me to prove it doesn’t. It’s your claim to defend.

    “You presume too much”

    No, you gave a text-book example of an ad hominem. That stands.

    *Again, He asked kids ‘Have either of your parents ever had a gay romantic relationship?” And if they said yes, they went in the “Raised by gays” pile. You might as well have asked a bunch of kids raised by gays “Have either of your parents ever had a straight experience?” And if they said yes, you then count that child as having been raised by straight parents.

    Like

    • The central part of the previous comment I was referring to said this:

      “[w]hen sex becomes a person’s life and sexual intercourse outside of normal, natural marriage becomes just another recreational activity, then you have these sorts of problems. That’s yet another reason marriage between 1 man and 1 woman should be promoted and protected with special rights and privileges. It should be held up as the ideal, since studies show that it works to prevent a host of social problems.”

      To which I added:

      (That was me acknowledging that SSM isn’t the cause of all evils in the world, as you would like to portray me as saying.)

      RE: Complaining = Argument

      You said:

      And the burden of proof is with you to show SSM creates difficulties, not with me to prove it doesn’t. It’s your claim to defend.

      Well, a complaint is not an argument. On the contrary:

      The study survived a scientific misconduct investigation prompted by New Civil Rights Movement blogger Scott Rose, which found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

      source:
      The Colorado Independent: Texas University Releases Regnerus Parenting Study Documents

      *Note: The reference documents right there.

      How could a committee miss what you and tildeb put forward as a major flaw? As I mentioned earlier, Regnerus himself said that he stands by his findings. And did you see the letter signed by 27 scholars in support of his research? Even they had this to say:

      This is why sociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president-elect of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”

      In fact, Regnerus himself said this in Slate on 20120620:

      “…a good deal of early ire hinges on my construction of LMs, which refers to “lesbian mother,” an acronym I state is not about sexual orientation, but rather about relationship behavior (i.e. the mother has had a same-sex relationship). So why did I group together LMs who raised kids in a coupled relationship with those who may have only been in shorter-term same-sex relationships? Remember, we started with 15,058 random contacts. We had only two cases in which mom and her partner were together for 18 years. We’ve got only six cases where mom and her partner were reported to have stayed together for 10 or more years, and 18 cases for five years. We’re still seriously in small-sample-size territory, prone to making what’s called a Type II error, meaning we could erroneously conclude that there are no differences when there really are. How about those 81 cases wherein respondents reported living with mom and her partner for at least a good share of a year or more? While hardly an ideal sample size, the story there changes little from that which appeared in the study (in which my analytic sample size was 163, and included LMs who lived with their mother and her partner and LMs who did not): 20 out of 40 outcomes reveal simple statistically-significant differences with the “intact bio family,” and 18 after controls. This dip from 24 statistically-significant differences after controls (the number in the study) to 18 differences here appears largely a result of declining statistical power, not genuinely disappearing distinctions.

      If I could have, I would have compared stably-coupled LMs and GFs (gay fathers) with everyone else. As I noted earlier, the longer the household stay of the two-LMs, the better the kids’ outcomes appear at face value, but a meaningful statistical comparison of those few is just not possible. Some feel it was unethical to have moved forward once I realized this. That’s extreme, a standard to which research prior to this study has not been held. I thought the information we could learn deserved a hearing.

      Anyway, I’m moving on from this topic now. See ya!

      Joshua

      Like

  8. “Besides, I didn’t say anything about the sexuality of the person or web site (didn’t know web sites had sexual preferences, but it is the 21st century…). I merely said they were a pro-gay site.”

    Nit-pick much? For someone asking people to stay on topic, you have a fine line in pointless pedantry. It’s an ad hominem either way – the point remains the same whether I put ‘authors of the site’, ‘gay site’ or ‘pro-gay site’ or ‘site putting over a pro-gay point of view’. For that matter, I might as well nit-pick you that the site isn’t ‘pro-gay’ so much as ‘supportive of gay rights’ – I don’t see the site trying to convert people to being gay, after all. You’ll notice I haven’t once brought up any bias that Regnerus or his backers might have (and there’s certainly plenty of evidence there, with his ties to the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage and ultra-conservative Catholic groups like Opus Dei), concentrating instead purely on his poor methodology.

    (I’ll give you the credit that the part of that quote in brackets is merely a joke, or do I have to point out that if I reference a ‘racist book’ I’m referring to the opinions of the authors rather than that of the spine, dust-jacket or pages?)

    Like

  9. “which found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

    Great, but no-one said anything about falsifying data, so ‘wrongdoing’ is beside the point, which is that the study can’t be used to back up your claim that “children of gay couples were more likely to be sexually abused, involved in crime, and so on”. Regnerus’ study interviewed more than 15,000 people, but included no more than 45 ‘planned lesbian families’ and no more than a single ‘planned gay father’ family.

    Regnerus himself said: “It is not surprising that statistically-significant differences would not emerge in studies employing as few as 18 or 33 or 44 cases of respondents with same-sex parents, respectively” and “Even analyzing matched samples, as a variety of studies have done, fails to mitigate the challenge of locating statistically-significant differences when the sample size is small.”

    “I’m moving on from this topic now”

    The smartest move you’ve made on this thread!

    Like

  10. I don’t think, Joshua, you understand what ‘scientific misconduct’ means. Surviving a misconduct investigation does not mean the study itself i in any way vindicated as a good study or that the results were in any way bolstered to be a good study; it means there was no evidence for academic misconduct… in other words, no evidence for making stuff up, no lying, no cheating, no thievery, no plagiarism, and so on.

    And that’s good to know.

    But the quality of the study to compare effects of SSM to OSM (opposite sex marriage) is extraordinarily low, so low as to be useless. Yet this is how its finding are being touted, which is completely inappropriate because it simply doesn’t compare apples to apples. It seeks out dysfunctional families first, lumps anyone who has had a same-sex relationship into a data set and then, unsurprisingly finds that kids from these dysfunctional subset of the larger dysfunctional set examined have negative correlates! Well, duh. Using this methodology you could equally well establish that a subset that had dogs have a negative correlate, or those with fish, or those who play basketball, and so on. It’s the link to same sex as the causal factor that is simply missing in action, and it is evidence for this link that is being assumed by people who tout the study as if it provided exactly this. It doesn’t. And Regnerus admits as much. But those against SSM aren’t listening.

    Like

    • Yes, that’s what I was trying to point it out. I would have done earlier, but I only just got that this misunderstanding was why Josh kept going on about the study being cleared. So be it if Josh was now ‘moved on’ from this thread, but your post there should at least clear things up for any casual reader of the site (if many exist outside of you, me and those other two guys who occasionally post here about bestiality and necrophilia).

      Like

      • Well, Andy, you’re free to visit other blogs and leave messages there. When I leave a message on a blog, I don’t automatically assume that the blogger is going to be free to respond to me each time or that he or she will even read what I wrote. Like you, I’m extremely busy; there are about 10 other things I could be doing right now. But I enjoy maintaining this and another blog I have. If you don’t appreciate it or if my responses don’t mean squat to you, then tell me, man. I’ll stop responding to your comments and open up some more free time for both of us.

        Like

    • Isn’t lying and cheating and twisting facts what you two are accusing Regnerus of?

      Complain about the Regnerus study. Point out flaws. That’s fine. But you should at least provide a similar study that has endured equal scrutiny, especially when you make claims that same-sex parents are equal to heterosexual parents. Is that asking too much? Besides, tildeb, I could provide you two with some more studies which show the importance of a mother and a father in the life of their children. But you guys won’t let us know what would count as evidence that such family units are better for children and society than homosexual parents, so I’m really at a wall of how to interact with you two. While you both are obviously well-versed in the complaining department, I think you need to work on the “providing evidence for our claims” department. Give us a single study that backs your claim that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual ones. Show us something that disproves Paul Amato’s claim that Regnerus’s study is “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”

      I’ll be waiting…

      Like

      • Give us a single study that backs your claim that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual ones.

        Oh, for crying out loud, Josh. You’re not even trying.

        On the topic of same-sex parenting and effects on children, all – repeat, all – professional organizations arrive at the same conclusion: there is no evidence (that withstands critical review) that same sex parents cause dysfunction in children. There is some evidence that same sex parenting is, in fact, better (attributed to the fact that same sex couples must want children in order to have them versus opposite couple who sometimes have unwanted children).

        Each of these organizations list dozens and dozens and dozens of studies that you – through the marvel of Google – can find out all on your own. It took me seconds to find out that there are more than 80 studies on exactly this issue… all revealing the same thing: there is no causal evidence to attribute dysfunction in children to the gender of parents. This was the same basis for the court finding Prop 8 unconstitutional.

        But you find a study that doesn’t compare children of heterosexual couples to children of same sex couples – one funded by those dedicated by the use of both money and resources to lobbying government to legally discriminate – and you simply reject out of hand the overwhelming contra-indicators to its dubious conclusion.

        This tells us something important.

        This shows you have no intention of finding out what’s true, finding out what seems to be the scientific consensus on balance, finding out why all – repeat, all – professional organizations involved with the mental, emotional, and physical health of children assure us that there is no evidence for causal harm to children from same sex parents, finding out first if reality adjudicates same sex parenting to be harmful before making up your mind; your approach reveals a very clear intention to try to find anything – no matter how questionable in quality it may be – to bolster religious bigotry against same sex couples in the form of legal discrimination based on misguided and inaccurate and unethical and anti-secular belief.

        Like

      • tildeb, you’re getting out of control again. You can take the brash, disingenuous course and tell me, “Google it”. Cute. Try that in real life. (Next time you’re in a business meeting, tell your boss, “Google it!”) You obviously fail to see the thing I’m grasping for. You want to take issue with the link(s) I posted. Well, let’s see if your precious studies pass the same scrutiny. (The one study I read of that attempted to prove your point used a half-page of statistics from an unpublished paper!) So rather than me sort through a maze of research papers whose methods and conclusions you may or may not agree with, I want to get one you yourself choose. Let’s see how it fairs. So it’s time for you to put up or shut up.

        If you go on an ad hominem attack once more, you’re completely off my list of people to interact with for good. I don’t have time to waste enduring false accusations and half-truths from an anonymous commenter apparently blind to his own biases and presuppositions.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Well, let’s see if your precious studies pass the same scrutiny.

        Josh, the scrutiny comes not from a few bloggers who cherry pick the data they want to support their opinion but from every professional organization staffed by professional people concerned about the health, welfare, and development of real people (even those of same sex orientation who face face real and highly adverse legal discrimination). They are the ones who scrutinize not for personal confirmation for their individual opinions but for relevant information that affects their professional understanding. Your contrary opinion is not equivalently informed.

        You still don’t know what ad hominem means, I see. I’m criticizing your methods and justifiably concluding from this what your intentions must be. Perhaps you should do the same and better understand why you reject those who are knowledgeable about the subject, why you reject their consensus based on best available data, and continue to support your anti-SSM beliefs that seem to have no positive value to them. Failing that, I’m just trying to help clarify why you should.

        Like

      • Poor tildeb. I could have given you examples of references which mention the importance of a father and mother in a child’s well being. I could show you examples of reports which discuss the importance of fathers in the prevention of social problems and even things like their children’s ability to handle stress.

        Maybe you want to fault me and accuse me of “cherry picking” because I didn’t put up a link for every study available. But I shouldn’t have to, right? I mean, you’ve probably already read those, being the intellectually honest person that you are and reading those that disagree with your opinion, no? I could even mention the government push in the country where I live to get fathers to spend more time with their children. (I wonder what information they had that made them think it was important?) But you already know about that, don’t you?

        Now, let’s get back to your source(s), if it/they exist. Instead of rambling and continually giving us the “take-my-word-for-it” routine, give us some substance. Shut up about me and give us some data. I’ve asked you several times (!) for a single reference of your choosing to support your claims (see previous comment as to why) and you’ve continually refused and once again ignorantly turned the topic to me. That’s cowardly and disingenuous. (And I can’t help but think it’s because you can’t provide any substance to your claims.)

        So it’s time to take your disingenuous rantings elsewhere. The rare reasonable sentences that sometimes show up in your comments aren’t worth the effort sorting through the wordy ramblings.

        Bye, tildeb.

        Like

  11. “If you don’t appreciate it…”

    When did I say I don’t appreciate it?

    “But you should at least provide a similar study that has endured equal scrutiny”

    You cited a study to back up your claim that gay parents make worse parents, when the study included barely any same sex couples bringing up kids – which, after all, is what the argument is about: the effect on children brought up by married gays. Mark Regnerus himself said: “I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad”.

    So it’s your claim to defend. If someone cited a similar study claiming that some other group were worse for bringing up children, and the study didn’t back up that claim, then it’s enough for us to point out those flaws. There’s no burden of proof on us to respond with a study that shows blonde people or people with dogs or people with three cars or whatever can bring up their kids as well as anyone else.

    “so I’m really at a wall of how to interact with you two”

    You could start by acknowledging the problems with Regnerus study, including that it had such a tiny proportion of gay couples bringing up kids that it’s useless to back up your claim. You could admit that it makes no sense to count as ‘being brought up by gays’ anyone who says “One of my parents at some point had some kind of romantic gay relationship”, regardless of how brief it was, or even if it happened long after that child was an adult. I mean, I know two lesbians who are bringing up a child from a hetero relationship one of them had. Presumably you wouldn’t put that child in the ‘brought up by heterosexuals’ group simply because one of the parents at one point had a heterosexual relationship. And yet Regnerus does the same thing the other way.

    Worse, the question by definition is identifying any child with a parent who had an affair. Regnerus made no attempt to control for this by comparing such children with parents who had other HETERO relationships. So virtually all the ‘brought up gays’ group were also a ‘parents had affairs’ group. Can you honestly see no way that this might have muddied the data? He’s basically showing that children suffer when the parents have affairs, and he has no way of showing whether or not the sexuality of the parents played any factor in that.

    I’ll deal with your Paul Amato reference in my next post.

    Like

  12. “Paul Amato’s claim that Regnerus’s study is “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”

    That’s a pretty vaguely worded claim. Further, while Amato may have believed this study was ‘better situated’ to detect differences, that doesn’t mean he held that it successfully did so. In fact he voiced concerns:

    “What is the most appropriate comparison group? This is a difficult question, given the heterogeneity of gay and lesbian families with children. Consider lesbian couples who have children through sperm donation, or gay couples who have children through surrogacy. Is it reasonable to compare these children with the children of continuously married heterosexual parents? Or should children in the heterosexual comparison group be limited to those born via sperm donation or surrogacy? What about lesbian mothers or gay fathers with children from former marriages or unions? Should these children be compared with those of heterosexual parents who are married, cohabiting, remarried, divorced, or never married?

    The fact that same-sex marriage is now allowed in several states adds another level of complexity to the problem. Perhaps in future studies, married same-sex parents should be matched with married heterosexual parents.”

    So he’s not saying the study is in any way conclusive, he’s saying that it didn’t make proper comparisons and that we can’t really tell until SSM parents are bringing up kids.

    Amato’s commentary was one of three published in the July 2012 Social Science Review. The others were from David J. Eggebeen of Penn State’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies and Cynthia Osborne, of the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs. Both had issues with limitations of the data. I won’t block up your blog with lengthy quotes, so feel free to google them yourself. However, I will post Regnerus’ response, which pretty much acknowledges the problems, and seems to caution against using the study to make exactly the kind of claims you make above:

    “I recognize, with Paul and Cynthia, that organizations may utilize these findings to press a political program. And I concur with them that that is not what data come prepared to do. Paul offers wise words of caution against it, as did I in the body of the text. Implying causation here—to parental sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter—is a bridge too far.”

    Like

    • The American Sociology Association concludes their assessment of the Regnurus study is exactly the right criticism:

      In sum, by conflating (1) children raised by same-sex parents with (2) individuals who reportedly had a parent who had “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex,” and referring to such individuals as children of “lesbian mothers” or “gay fathers,” the Regnerus study obscures the fact that it did not specifically examine children raised by two same-sex parents. Accordingly, it cannot speak to the impact of same-sex parenting on child outcomes.

      Like

  13. “I don’t automatically assume that the blogger is going to be free to respond to me each time or that he or she will even read what I wrote”

    Neither do I. Above I was making the point that although you’d said you were moving on, I was posting for the benefit of other readers, rather than trying to get the last word in. I would hope that you would want your readers to have as much information available to them as possible so they can make their own minds up.

    Like

  14. Josh, the studies and the statements from various organisations Tildeb refers to, or articles linking to these studies are indeed pretty easy to find.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
    http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf
    http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf
    http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/inetshare/autowebs/kimt/aw%20articles/children%20of%20lesbian%20and%20gay%20parents.pdf
    http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

    There were many, many more.

    The only one I could find arguing the opposite was Mark Regnerus’s study, which you’ve never started to defend, short of pointing out that it has been declared not outright fraudulent, and that the study shows broken homes are bad for kids, neither of which help you in the the claim you originally cited the study to support.

    Here’s yet another article pointing out the problems with that study, and just for you it’s not from a pro-gay website (sorry, ‘website putting forward pro-gay views’)
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/06/gay-marriage

    Like

    • That wasn’t hard, was it, Andy? I’m reading them now. Interestingly, already two of the links I’ve read mention the exact same report by Dr. Nanette Gartrell (a lesbian herself marriage to a lesbian activist) called the “U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study” (NLLFS) in support of your position. So, for a start, let’s see how that study holds up under further scrutiny by qualified professionals. Have you read any critiques of that particular study?

      Developing…

      Like

      • “That wasn’t hard, was it, Andy?”

        You’d addressed it to Tildeb, which is why I hadn’t answered earlier. But in answer to your question – no, it wasn’t hard at all. You were the one making the claims that go against the position of all the organisations Tildeb listed, so really its an indictment of your own curiosity that you couldn’t have searched out any of the studies whose position your rejected yourself.

        The Wiki page alone on the subject of children brought up by gays linked to many studies. I think it’s just part of your attempt to make anyone jump through hoops in order to engage with you on any subject. Anyone commenting aiming to make a single point then faces demands to answer a bunch of other questions from you, while their original point goes unaddressed.

        So go knock yourself out and check out all the studies I gave links to, and if you conclude that none can be trusted you can go on and research some more yourself. Why not go direct to some of those organisations that Tildeb listed and find out which studies they based their conclusions on? If you seriously degree with all those studies, take it up with those organisations.

        Your position still has to be that Regnerus’s study (which, as established, you haven’t ever tried to defend) has it right, despite even he admitted it says nothing about gay parents being inherently worse, and all those professional organisations, many with the wellbeing of children as a principal aim, have it completely wrong.

        Like

      • …so really its an indictment of your own curiosity that you couldn’t have searched out any of the studies whose position your rejected yourself.

        …I think it’s just part of your attempt to make anyone jump through hoops in order to engage with you on any subject. Anyone commenting aiming to make a single point then faces demands to answer a bunch of other questions from you, while their original point goes unaddressed.

        Well, you’re simply wrong, Andy. It’s actually me trying to put myself in the same position as the both of you; person A produces a link or a study, person B critiques the link or the study. You see? (Thankfully, it only took me about 7 requests to get a link.) As I’ve told you before, if you’d like to fault me for not just taking your word for it, then so be it. You can say this or that about my ability — or, rather, inability — to find something. One of my degrees is in Web technology, so I’m pretty capable of finding things online myself. That wasn’t the problem.

        That reminds me…

        So far the only significant study related to the topic of gay parenting I’ve seen mentioned is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study by Dr. Nanette Gartrell. After my initial (and on-going) research into the NLLFS study, I’m starting to wonder what evidence both you and the organizations you and tildeb have mentioned (whose biases we haven’t even addressed) have to make the claims about gay parents being equal. Surely you’ve read the NLLFS study and other related articles by Dr. Nanette Gartrell, haven’t you?

        As it stands, her and her colleague’s study fairs far worse than Regrenus’s at this point in my reading.

        Developing…

        Like

      • I’m starting to wonder what evidence both you and the organizations you and tildeb have mentioned…

        What is needed are statistical contra-indicators to show a link between gay parenting and an increase in the mean results showing negative effect on children (their behaviours, development, strength of gender identity, sexual orientation, later achievements, relationship stability, economic status, and so on). Because there are no such contra-indicators, there is no basis on which to associate gay parenting with negative causal results.

        Professional organization don’t care about personal bias, in the sense that the data speaks for itself. That’s why you have to cherry pick specific studies done by specific people with questionable and tentative links unsupported by general data to suggest there is some cause to gay parenting that produces negative effects. The negative effects produced once non relevant factors to gay parenting are eliminated simply aren’t there. There is no causal evidence. That’s why all professional organizations dealing with children and parents do not subscribe to the belief that there is a negative effect caused by gay parenting; there is no informed basis to do so.

        Like

      • There’s another post I added before that one with ten or so links to the sort of studies you referred to. It didn’t take long to find them.

        Like

      • No, it doesn’t take long at all. One must seek them, however, and that lack of interest seems to be an insurmountable problem for some… dedicated as they are to maintain a fiction.

        Like

  15. Here are a few policy statements that describe the professional standards used to represent their professional positions on gay parenting:

    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)

    The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) approved the following statement in support of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in June 1999:

    There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child.

    From the American Academy of Family Physicians (2002)

    On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) adopted the following position statement at its October 2002 meeting:

    “RESOLVED, That the AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation.”

    American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (2004)

    On same-sex unions. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers adopted the following position statement at its November 2004 meeting:

    “BE IT RESOLVED That the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers supports the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.”

    American Academy of Pediatrics (2002)

    The American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following statement in support of gay and lesbian parenting and called for equal access to co-parenting and second-parent adoption rights for gay and lesbian parents in February 2002:

    “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual. When two adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

    Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the “coparent” or “second parent.” Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having two willing, capable, and loving parents.”

    American Anthropological Association (2004)

    On same-sex unions. The American Anthropological Association issued the following statement in February 2004:

    “The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

    American Medical Association

    On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Medical Association adopted the following position statement at its June 2004 meeting:

    “WHEREAS, Having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents promotes a safe and nurturing environment for children, including psychological and legal security; and

    “WHEREAS, Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal parent; and

    “WHEREAS, The legislative protection afforded to children of parents in homosexual relationships varies from state to state, with some states enacting or considering legislation sanctioning co-parent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex, several states declining to consider legislation, and at least one state altogether banning adoption by the second parent; and

    “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption guarantees that the second parent’s custody rights and responsibilities are protected if the first parent dies or becomes incapacitated; and

    “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption ensures the child’s eligibility for health benefits from both parents and establishes the requirement for child support from both parents in the event of the parents’ separation; and

    “WHEREAS, Co-parent or second parent adoption establishes legal grounds to provide consent for medical care and to make health care decisions on behalf of the child and guarantees visitation rights if the child becomes hospitalized; and

    “WHEREAS, The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association have each issued statements supporting initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children; therefore be it

    “RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child. (New HOD Policy)”

    American Psychiatric Association (2002, 1997, and 2000)

    On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its November 2002 meeting:

    “The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives that allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives.”

    American Psychoanalytic Association (1997 and 2002)

    On gay and lesbian parenting. The American Psychoanalytic Association adopted this policy statement in support of gay and lesbian parenting in May 2002:

    “The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is in the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child’s development.”

    American Psychological Association (1976, 1998, and 2004)

    For full text of APA policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns, see APA policy lgbc.

    On parenting: The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the following position statement in September 1976:

    “The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases. ”

    Reference: Conger, J. J. (1977). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1976: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 32, 408-438.

    Child Welfare League of America (1988)

    The Child Welfare League of America’s Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states:

    Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation.” Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted “on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.”

    National Association of Social Workers (2002)

    The National Association of Social Workers approved the following policy statement at in August 2002 at the NASW Delegate Assembly.

    “Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be supported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people should be vigorously opposed. ”

    National Association of Social Workers (1994). Policy statement on lesbian and gay issues. In Social Work Speaks: NASW Policy Statements (pp. 162-165). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

    North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)

    The North American Council on Adoptable Children issued a policy statement in 1998 (amended April 14, 2002) that states:

    “Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents. Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration.

    Like

    • Tildeb, Josh will just say all those organisations are biased and all are basing their statements on bad studies.

      We both know there was never a chance that Josh was going to announce he’d changed his mind on the issue. Regardless of what we presented, it was always going to be rejected. The only question was quite how much he was going to reject, how big he believes the conspiracy to be, and that was always going to be limited purely by how much you and I came up with. My only slight surprise is that Josh has still refused to acknowledge even the smallest problems with Mark Regnerus’s study. Not one. So I guess he probably still thinks it trumps anything else on offer, despite the fact that it doesn’t really study children being raised by gay couples at all.

      Anyway, he can pick apart individual studies (Dr Morse critiqued the NNLFS study, mainly just repeating limitations that the study itself announced, so I guess next he’ll offer some of the same) but when there have been this many studies, then even if individually they were limited, one would expect that if there were truly negative effects on the children of gay couples one would still have started to see that reflected in a decent number of the studies, or in meta collections of studies. That simply hasn’t happened.

      At a certain point, in the face of someone saying they hold that ALL those organisations are mistaken or biased or whatever, all you can do is say you’ll agree to disagree and move on. There’ll always be a small die-hard group who cannot change their minds, but right now they are swiftly becoming the minority and so arguing with them simply becomes unnecessary.

      Like

      • Like you wrote upthread, it’s mostly for anyone who isn’t already convinced, who may be open to understanding why antagonists of gay marriage have no knowledge to inform their opinions; there is belief that such a legal change could be ‘bad’ but this belief is not based on evidence and not based on fact. Commentary and cartoons that suggest it is are examples, as I also stated upthread, of scaremongering, which does not serve what’s true but supports only what is believed without merit to be true. And this ‘belief in belief’ is what empowers bigotry.

        Like

      • “Josh will just say all those organisations are biased and all are basing their statements on bad studies.”

        Now Andy is a mind-reader and a prophet?!

        Well, I’m curious how many of the studies you read before your came to your conclusions. I’m a little concerned that you didn’t read Dr. Gartrell’s study in particular that I’ve been asking you about because you twice wrote the wrong acronym for it (and you didn’t answer when I asked you if you had read it).

        For what it’s worth, I’m focusing my limited time on studying not the “NNLFS” [sic] but the “NLLFS” because the study itself maintains that it is “the largest, longest running, prospective, longitudinal study of same-sex–parented families”. That is significant in this thread, since we’re talking about gay parenting (not me). So, if I was on your side, that’d be the study to go to. However, anti-traditional marriage proponents hit a snag from outset citing the study. The study itself is only of children of lesbian couples. This in itself means, at the very least, it couldn’t be cited as evidence for how good male homosexual parents are. I could go on from my initial reading of the study to point out the potential interests of the organizations who funded it (as you did with Regnerus’s study); that Dr. Gartrell’s field isn’t child development; the data were gathered only from 3 cities; the mothers answered questions about their own children’s development (!); that, on a side note, its author is not merely lesbian but an out-spoken proponent of polyamory; etc. Then again, I don’t think you’ve actually read the study, otherwise someone as intelligent as you would have seen these problems and would have refrained from posting links which cite it as the source for their claims.

        Now, I’m taking my time with this, reading the study carefully, and making notes on the side. I haven’t seen Dr. Morse’s critique of it and, now that I know she did critique it, I’m not planning on reading it until after I finish my own reading.

        You guys can continue your high-fives and pats on the back and bigotry without me.

        Joshua

        Like

      • PS –

        There’ll always be a small die-hard group who cannot change their minds, but right now they are swiftly becoming the minority and so arguing with them simply becomes unnecessary.

        Well, makes perfect sense that you think that, given that you keep leaving comments. If you really think arguing with those of us who support traditional, natural marriage is unnecessary, why not stop doing it? And let’s not forget that large, die-hard group you belong to that also cannot change their mind.

        Your comment had me cracking up and shaking my head from all the ignorant assertions. For the record, we’re talking about gay parenting, not me, remember? I noticed as I started researching into one of your best evidences — the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) — and pointing out obvious flaws, you’ve been helping turn what is supposed to be an interaction on gay marriage and parenting into a thread about me. Let’s shut up about me and address the topic. Did you read the NLLFS? Did you see any problems with it? If so, then what better study can you cite for your claims about gay parenting?

        Joshua

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s