HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

[koshergrl]

"....research disproved an often-cited 2005 brief by the American Psychological Association (APA) that concluded: "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." This sentence has now been removed from the APA's website.
"And the confidence behind that assertion will be invalidated again and again, as more research unearths the problems associated with homosexual parenting and/or adoption.
"One such investigation is that by associate professor at Louisiana State University Loren Marks, published in Social Science Research.
"His work reviews the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support its above-quoted claim.
"Marks found them wanting in various areas, including lack of homogeneous sampling, absence of comparison groups, presence of contradictory data, and paucity of long-term outcome data. The scope of the children’s outcomes studied was too limited: they focused on "gender roles" and "sexual identities", while neglecting to examine the children’s education outcomes, employment, risk of substance abuse, criminal behaviour, or suicide.
"The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted."

Your homo studies suck. And the sole purpose of homos spreading propaganda about how nice they are to kids seems to be to make it legal for them to *adopt* youngsters into their depraved lifestyle.

A cultural thing. Like Isis and their dancing boys.

Articles: Same-sex Adoption: Not as Harmless as Portrayed
This debunking is particularly significant, in view of the fact that the APA-endorsed studies have been used in attempts to influence legal decisions in European and American courts


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/samesex_adoption_not_as_harmless_as_portrayed.html#ixzz3mbpTX6oQ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[paddymurphy]

Proof that being raised by straight parents dies not assure you won't' become a psychologically disturbed person. The question is was she born this stupid and hateful or was she just raised by such people.

The point is that you stupid dishonest assholes will say anything to get your way. Men and women are different and bring different aspects to a child's upbringing. A child will be better off with the two, like the last, oh I don't know, 100,000 years? IF you need to point to two murderous or monstrous heterosexuals to look a little better, that says it all. You are sick people, you can't see past your genitals, we get it.

And you think with your head up your ass. Sexual orientation does not determine whether one will be a good parent. Banning all gay couples from adopting will prevent children from being raised in a loving family. You seem to think that being straight, in and of itself,,will make a person a better parent than a gay person. That is not true. Are you a parent? There is the proof that a straight person can be a shitty parent.

 

[koshergrl]

Proof that being raised by straight parents dies not assure you won't' become a psychologically disturbed person. The question is was she born this stupid and hateful or was she just raised by such people.

The point is that you stupid dishonest assholes will say anything to get your way. Men and women are different and bring different aspects to a child's upbringing. A child will be better off with the two, like the last, oh I don't know, 100,000 years? IF you need to point to two murderous or monstrous heterosexuals to look a little better, that says it all. You are sick people, you can't see past your genitals, we get it.

And you think with your head up your ass. Sexual orientation does not determine whether one will be a good parent. Banning all gay couples from adopting will prevent children from being raised in a loving family. You seem to think that being straight, in and of itself,,will make a person a better parent than a gay person. That is not true. Are you a parent? There is the proof that a straight person can be a shitty parent.

No it won't. It just means they'll go to loving hetero families instead of depraved homo sociopaths.

 

[koshergrl]

"The idea that children raised in same-sex households fare as well as children of married opposite-sex couples may not withstand scrutiny, according to a recent collection of studies.
"Princeton University professor John B. Londregan said that the studies collected in a new book show “that the jury is still very much out on this question.”

"Mr. Londregan, who teaches politics and international affairs at Princeton, authored the introduction to the new collection of scholarly papers titled “No Differences? How Children in Same-Sex Households Fare.”

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

 

[paddymurphy]

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

And:

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

From the article. "Mr. Regnerus cautioned that his study does not attempt to “undermine or affirm arguments” about gay rights, or link poor adult outcomes solely to gay parenting." So he says you cannot link poor adult outcomes solely to gay parenting.

So what? Nobody said that. Including him. You're out of your depth, and your league.

He did say it. That would be why it was in quotes. More education for you:

Overview: We identified 77 scholarly studies that met our criteria for addressing the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 73 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the wellbeing of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.
What We Know Blog | What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents?

 

[paddymurphy]

"The idea that children raised in same-sex households fare as well as children of married opposite-sex couples may not withstand scrutiny, according to a recent collection of studies.
"Princeton University professor John B. Londregan said that the studies collected in a new book show “that the jury is still very much out on this question.”

"Mr. Londregan, who teaches politics and international affairs at Princeton, authored the introduction to the new collection of scholarly papers titled “No Differences? How Children in Same-Sex Households Fare.”

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

 

[koshergrl]

"The idea that children raised in same-sex households fare as well as children of married opposite-sex couples may not withstand scrutiny, according to a recent collection of studies.
"Princeton University professor John B. Londregan said that the studies collected in a new book show “that the jury is still very much out on this question.”

"Mr. Londregan, who teaches politics and international affairs at Princeton, authored the introduction to the new collection of scholarly papers titled “No Differences? How Children in Same-Sex Households Fare.”

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

 

[paddymurphy]

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

No,they are not. More fucking lies from you.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A clear majority of Americans (63%) say same-sex couples should have the legal right to adopt a child, the most to say so since Gallup began tracking opinions on the matter more than 20 years ago. This is higher than Americans' support for same-sex marriage (55%).
Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

Like this you mean....

As reported on the 2000 Census, about 65,000 children lived with same sex parents. In 2012, 110,000 live with gay parents.

Over the years, the number of children living with LGBT parents has risen tremendously. As the trend continues, that number will only increase, as same sex adoption and parenting becomes more and more widely accepted.

Get used to it !

 

[paddymurphy]

That is not what you were referring to as the "study from Princeton". There is no study you have identified other than the delis credited one from Regenerus.

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

Seems that there was a lot of grooming by straight parents since they raised the gay folks we are talking about.

 

[koshergrl]

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

Seems that there was a lot of grooming by straight parents since they raised the gay folks we are talking about.

No the kids are groomed by homo friends.

 

[koshergrl]

Now you're just boring.

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

Like this you mean....

As reported on the 2000 Census, about 65,000 children lived with same sex parents. In 2012, 110,000 live with gay parents.

Over the years, the number of children living with LGBT parents has risen tremendously. As the trend continues, that number will only increase, as same sex adoption and parenting becomes more and more widely accepted.

Get used to it !

Yes we're much more accepting of depravity and substandard behavior these days, thanks to the progressive infestation. Child sexual abuse, human trafficking, stds and mental illness are also on the rise. Progressives livin the dream!!!!

 

[koshergrl]

Remember....if it's a cultural thing, then it's okay to abduct, imprison, rape and torture young boys.

 

[paddymurphy]

And you are a fucking liar.

Are you crying? Don't cry. I didn't mean to make you cry. You fags are so emotional.

And you lying ***** are so predictable. I am straight and like most straight people I support equality for gay Americans. .,

Equality for gay Americans doesn't mean giving them children to groom, sorry.

Most Americans are adamantly against that.

Seems that there was a lot of grooming by straight parents since they raised the gay folks we are talking about.

No the kids are groomed by homo friends.

Who groomed you to be such a twisted fuck?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit! Post just one study that says that. Just one.

" On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

" When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures."

Family Research Council

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal
Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children. Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement




More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit! Post just one study that says that. Just one.

" On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

" When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures."

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Here is more!


Open Letter to University of Texas Regarding Professor Mark Regnerus' Alleged Unethical Anti-Gay Study

In an open letter to the president of University of Texas Scott Rose methodically lays out the case that Professor Mark Regnerus has engaged in unethical so-called scientific research in a study about children of gay parents funded by Robert George

Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

June 21, 2012 William Powers, Jr. President University of Texas, Austin Office of the President Main Building 400 (G3400) Austin, Texas 78713-8920 In Re: Scientific Misconduct Complaint against UTA’s Mark D. Regnerus Dear President Powers: I have filed, through the “EthicsPoint” online system, a complaint against University of Texas,Austin’s Dr. Mark D. Regnerus for Scientific Misconduct in violation of UTA’s Academic Dishonesty Policy, which forbids use of misinformation to hurt others.Please respond promptly to this letter, which is being published at www.TheNewCivilRightsMovement.com Here are some facts of the case: 1) This is not a complaint that UTA Mark D. Regnerus is active politically. The complaint rather is that Regnerus accepted money from political persons and groups to further their political goals, and in preparing a study for them, rushed it through production for their use in the 2012 elections,though Regnerus himself has stated in a video interview given to the Daily Texan’s Hannah Jane Deciutus that his methodology for the study does not work “to the long-term benefit of science.”

Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[koshergrl]

" On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

" When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures."

Family Research Council

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal
Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children. Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement




More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

You sound positively hysterical.

And hopefully one of your online *professors* will teach you about paragraphs. I don't have time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal
Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children. Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement




More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

And:

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

You sound positively hysterical.

And hopefully one of your online *professors* will teach you about paragraphs. I don't have time.

I'm hysterical??!! Just presenting the facts. As far as paragraphs go-that how it was written. Nice way of evading the fact that this, like everything that you post is bovine excrement

 

[koshergrl]

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

You sound positively hysterical.

And hopefully one of your online *professors* will teach you about paragraphs. I don't have time.

I'm hysterical??!! Just presenting the facts. As far as paragraphs go-that how it was written. Nice way of evading the fact that this, like everything that you post is bovine excrement

No, you're hysterical.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lying pice of shit. You did not post one from Princeton University,maps you keep stating. At the end of your "Princeton" article it states:

Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University.

The right wing lie factory that produced the idiot who wrote a defense of regenerus is located in the city of Princeton, NJ. Neither the writer nor the Witherspoon Institute have a single fucking connection to Princeton University. And it was not a study. It was an opinion piece by a political science professor, not anyone with any expertise in any discipline relevant.

“The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."

Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting - Washington Times

To paraphrase, your studies meant to move kids into the hands of homos are highly, highly suspect.

Is there no end to the bogus crap that you come up with??? I already trashed Regnerus. Now you invoke him again and add another fraud!


Authors of Disreputable Anti-Gay Studies Triggered Growing Numbers of Critics, Rapidly Widening Scandal

Mark Regnerus, a professor at University of Texas, Austin and Loren Marks, a professor at Louisiana State University, authors of disreputable studies about gays have attracted growing numbers of critics in an apparent growing scandal

Reports on twinned studies now being used as anti-gay-rights weapons in the 2012 elections have to date focused mainly on 1) suspect work funded through NOM's Robert George and 2) carried out by University of Texas, Austin's Mark Regnerus. Regnerus purported to compare young adult children of heterosexual parents with gay parents, yet for his study, did not even attempt to locate actual persons substantially raised by gay parents. Previously, studies on children of gay parents showed good child outcomes. The Regnerus and Marks papers appear to have been contrived as a one-two election year punch to demonize same-sex-headed families with children.

Regnerus claims the following in his study; previous conclusions that homosexual parents were not more dangerous -- to children -- than heterosexual parents -- "must go" as a result of his study. The aim and contorted conclusion of Loren Mark's companion anti-gay-rights political propaganda, meanwhile -- titled "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes" -- is the discrediting of a 2005 American Psychological Association brief on gay parenting. One tell-tale sign that the two papers were coordinated for use as anti-gay-rights political propaganda is that although they were published simultaneously in "Social Science Research" -- whose editor James Wright has written demeaningly of gay people and their relationships -- the Marks paper cites the Regnerus paper. That is to say, before either of these two papers were published, Marks had information about the Regnerus study and used it as a reference work for his own anti-gay-rights paper. The appearance is strong that Regnerus and Marks were working in cahoots towards the simultaneous publication of their two articles, with an anti-gay-rights political aim in an election year. In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. Undeterred by that episode in which his scholarly fraudulence was exposed in a court of law, Marks made his current anti-gay-rights propaganda-research available to John Boehner-House Republicans' DOMA-defending attorney Paul Clement, for use in a court brief filed on June 4, 2012 in the Karen Golinski case. Marks's paper was cited in the court document before the paper was published. Marks's study is used in that court brief to argue that previous decisions in the Golinski case relied on insufficient research about gay parenting. Never mind that Golinski is not about gay parenting; it is about equal rights to federal benefits for same-sex spouses. Golinski and her wife do not have children, but the Boehner-Clement axis believes that demonizing gay parents in a case not involving gay parents should determine the outcome of the case. One of the most galling aspects of that brief, is that it argues against courts deciding DOMA cases, because, so Clement alleges, gay rights should be decided by voters, not by questions of constitutionality. Meanwhile, though, NOM's Robert George, who arranged for the funding of the Regnerus hit job, is an author of the anti-gay NOM pledge, signed by Romney, which calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country. That is to say, Boehner is using LGBT-tax payers' money to argue in court that gay Americans' rights should not be decided on any constitutional basis, until the Constitution says that same-sex marriage is forbidden throughout the country. Meanwhile, known Robert George political allies are using both the Marks and Regnerus studies to poison voters' minds against gay people. The Witherspoon Institute, through which George arranged much of Regnerus's funding, has published, among other anti-gay-attack articles The Kids Aren't Alright and Supreme Court Take Notice; Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Gay Marriage Debate. That latter article by Matthew J. Frank was cross-referenced by Frank in another post he made about the studies on The National Review site, Sociology, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Courts. The National Review is a long-time home to NOM's lying anti-gay bigot Maggie Gallagher, who has been touting the studies with evident anti-gay-rights political aims in varied publications including TNR's site. Here, Gallagher made a post, reporting on a panel of "sociologists" voicing support for the Regnerus study. What Gallagher the anti-gay propagandist did not make explicit in her post is that those supportive of Regnerus's anti-gay aims are all affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, and that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor. Robert George's and Maggie Gallagher's long-time anti-gay-rights collaborator Ed Whelan published on TNR's website a three-part installment of posts trumpeting the corrupt Regnerus and Marks studies and bashing same-sex-headed households. This reporter's request from Loren Marks's Louisiana State University for information regarding the funding of Marks's study has yet to receive a definitive response. New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account. Loren Marks at The New Civil Rights Movement

You sound positively hysterical.

And hopefully one of your online *professors* will teach you about paragraphs. I don't have time.

I'm hysterical??!! Just presenting the facts. As far as paragraphs go-that how it was written. Nice way of evading the fact that this, like everything that you post is bovine excrement

No, you're hysterical.

You mean as in funny??