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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wait, what? Now you're comparing single parenthood? Children do best with two parents. Data proves that the gender of those parents is immaterial.

Wrong, neocon. The data shows kids need both parents, mom and dad.

Horseshit! What data?

The increase in crime, school failure and general social demise in every locale that has a majority of unstructured families. Follow the data back through the 70's.

Moronic as usual! Two married parents who are both the legal guardians of the children is not an "unstructured family" You cannot come up with a shred of evidence to show that children of same sex parents do less well than others. Until you can, shut the fuck up.

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

Are you and Iceweasel fuck buddies?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Wrong, neocon. The data shows kids need both parents, mom and dad.

Horseshit! What data?

The increase in crime, school failure and general social demise in every locale that has a majority of unstructured families. Follow the data back through the 70's.

Moronic as usual! Two married parents who are both the legal guardians of the children is not an "unstructured family" You cannot come up with a shred of evidence to show that children of same sex parents do less well than others. Until you can, shut the fuck up.

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

Are you and Iceweasel fuck buddies?

Typical defeated troll response.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Horse shit.

The transcending factor is being poor and a single person trying to take care of a child (or children).

Compare apples to apples (two parents, same economic factors, etc.) and the lack of a father is shown not to be the "transcending" factor. It's one parent having to do all the work (regardless of gender) and lack of financial resources.



>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Deal with this or shut up! You have no credibility, and no understanding of social research. I don't think that you even believe your own equine excrement:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

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

 

[Seawytch]

Wait, what? Now you're comparing single parenthood? Children do best with two parents. Data proves that the gender of those parents is immaterial.

Wrong, neocon. The data shows kids need both parents, mom and dad.

Horseshit! What data?

The increase in crime, school failure and general social demise in every locale that has a majority of unstructured families. Follow the data back through the 70's.

Moronic as usual! Two married parents who are both the legal guardians of the children is not an "unstructured family" You cannot come up with a shred of evidence to show that children of same sex parents do less well than others. Until you can, shut the fuck up.

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you didn't. As you have continually, you are trying to compare single to intact families. That is not a valid comparison.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Deal with this or shut up! You have no credibility, and no understanding of social research. I don't think that you even believe your own equine excrement:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

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

I've given you the facts and you continue to ignore and obfuscate because facts don't fit your regressive agenda.
Empirical data, post-1960's, demonstrates unequivocally that children need mother and father. Not one or two of either.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Deal with this or shut up! You have no credibility, and no understanding of social research. I don't think that you even believe your own equine excrement:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

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

I've given you the facts and you continue to ignore and obfuscate because facts don't fit your regressive agenda.
Empirical data, post-1960's, demonstrates unequivocally that children need mother and father. Not one or two of either.

YOU are a fucking moron and too insane to even know it. That's all there is too it.

 

[Neser Boha]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Deal with this or shut up! You have no credibility, and no understanding of social research. I don't think that you even believe your own equine excrement:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

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

I've given you the facts and you continue to ignore and obfuscate because facts don't fit your regressive agenda.
Empirical data, post-1960's, demonstrates unequivocally that children need mother and father. Not one or two of either.

A child needs to be loved and taken care of, and it has NOTHING, NADA, ZIPP, to do with the sex of the parent/care taker. Empirical data my ass.

 

[Seawytch]

I've given you the facts and you continue to ignore and obfuscate because facts don't fit your regressive agenda.
Empirical data, post-1960's, demonstrates unequivocally that children need mother and father. Not one or two of either.

No, you've pointed to single parents as evidence that children need a mother and father. What your "empirical data", coupled with actual data shows, is that children do best with two parents.

How do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights if what you claim is true?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I just gave you a prime and perpetuated example of empirical evidence demonstrating the need for kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
You're on your own.

No you really haven't, You've been making unsubstantiated claims based on a false comparision.

Instead of comparing stable different-sex couples raising children and stable same-sex couples raising children, you have drawn false comparisons by trying using stable different-sex couples and single parents in typically economically poor communities.

The error is yours.


>>>>

No. The transcending factor has been the lack of a gender as parent, mostly fathers. Empirical.

Deal with this or shut up! You have no credibility, and no understanding of social research. I don't think that you even believe your own equine excrement:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

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

I've given you the facts and you continue to ignore and obfuscate because facts don't fit your regressive agenda.
Empirical data, post-1960's, demonstrates unequivocally that children need mother and father. Not one or two of either.

YOU are a fucking moron and too insane to even know it. That's all there is too it.

You can't deal with facts and reality so you have no room to pass judgment on intellect or sanity.
The evidence is empirical and now covers decades and generations, all post-1960's, which likely explains your regressively conservative opinion, that kids need both a mother and a father.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet another adoption case headed for SCOTUS. These heartless and moronic bastards won't stop but they will get smacked down sooner or later.......

Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
November 17, 2015 by HRC staff Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
lesbian parent in Alabama has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case challenging an Alabama Supreme Court decision nullifying a Georgia adoption order that provided her legal recognition as a parent. On September 18, the Alabama Supreme Court nullified a lesbian couple’s adoption order issued by a Georgia state court. The court held the Georgia state court violated its own state law when it issued the adoption order to the couple.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yet another adoption case headed for SCOTUS. These heartless and moronic bastards won't stop but they will get smacked down sooner or later.......

Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
November 17, 2015 by HRC staff Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
lesbian parent in Alabama has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case challenging an Alabama Supreme Court decision nullifying a Georgia adoption order that provided her legal recognition as a parent. On September 18, the Alabama Supreme Court nullified a lesbian couple’s adoption order issued by a Georgia state court. The court held the Georgia state court violated its own state law when it issued the adoption order to the couple.

It's heartless for homos to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his actual parents.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet another adoption case headed for SCOTUS. These heartless and moronic bastards won't stop but they will get smacked down sooner or later.......

Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
November 17, 2015 by HRC staff Lesbian Parent Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Adoption Rights Case
lesbian parent in Alabama has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case challenging an Alabama Supreme Court decision nullifying a Georgia adoption order that provided her legal recognition as a parent. On September 18, the Alabama Supreme Court nullified a lesbian couple’s adoption order issued by a Georgia state court. The court held the Georgia state court violated its own state law when it issued the adoption order to the couple.

It's heartless for homos to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his actual parents.

How exactly does that work smiley? Please explain. Are gays forcibly taking kids away from heterosexual parents. Common...I really want to know. Describe just one case in which a child who was adopted by a gay couple would have had their two opposite sex biological parents had they not been adopted by the gay folks

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's heartless for homos to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his actual parents.

It's heartless for heterosexuals who use the same methods to have a child or who adopt to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his (or her) actual parents.


>>>>

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's heartless for homos to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his actual parents.

It's heartless for heterosexuals who use the same methods to have a child or who adopt to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his (or her) actual parents.


>>>>

Bad argument.
If heteros adopt then the kid was already deprived of the chance to be raised by his actual parents. Or at least the realization is that the adoption was a better alternative to begin with. Not to mention that heteros are providing the mother-and-father circumstance which is what has been empirically demonstrated as the ideal for child rearing as illustrated by the social problems created by alternatives since the 1960's.
Homos contrive those adoption circumstances with no regard for the kid's rights.
It's circumstance vs contrivance and intent. Big difference.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bad argument.
If heteros adopt then the kid was already deprived of the chance to be raised by his actual parents. Or at least the realization is that the adoption was a better alternative to begin with. Not to mention that heteros are providing the mother-and-father circumstance which is what has been empirically demonstrated as the ideal for child rearing as illustrated by the social problems created by alternatives since the 1960's.
Homos contrive those adoption circumstances with no regard for the kid's rights.
It's circumstance vs contrivance and intent. Big difference.

It's the exact same argument.

If a different-sex couple uses sperm donation or adoption to have a child or bring one into their lives. They are denying that child the right to be raised by the "actual parents".

And you comparison of dual parent families to single parent families with your "social problems" of the poor is still a fail.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's heartless for homos to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his actual parents.

It's heartless for heterosexuals who use the same methods to have a child or who adopt to intentionally deprive a child of the right to the opportunity to be raised by his (or her) actual parents.


>>>>

Bad argument.
If heteros adopt then the kid was already deprived of the chance to be raised by his actual parents. Or at least the realization is that the adoption was a better alternative to begin with. Not to mention that heteros are providing the mother-and-father circumstance which is what has been empirically demonstrated as the ideal for child rearing as illustrated by the social problems created by alternatives since the 1960's.
Homos contrive those adoption circumstances with no regard for the kid's rights.
It's circumstance vs contrivance and intent. Big difference.

I see...when a heterosexual couple adopts, it is because the child did not have a mother and a father-the circumstances of which had nothing to do with the adoptive parents.. But when gays adopt, they are somehow responsible for whatever situation resulted in the child not having parents.

You are not even smart enough to realize how fucking stupid that is!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bad argument.
If heteros adopt then the kid was already deprived of the chance to be raised by his actual parents. Or at least the realization is that the adoption was a better alternative to begin with. Not to mention that heteros are providing the mother-and-father circumstance which is what has been empirically demonstrated as the ideal for child rearing as illustrated by the social problems created by alternatives since the 1960's.
Homos contrive those adoption circumstances with no regard for the kid's rights.
It's circumstance vs contrivance and intent. Big difference.

It's the exact same argument.

If a different-sex couple uses sperm donation or adoption to have a child or bring one into their lives. They are denying that child the right to be raised by the "actual parents".

And you comparison of dual parent families to single parent families with your "social problems" of the poor is still a fail.


>>>>

You conveniently left out the part where that kid will still be raised by a mother and a father.
You need only to look at every mostly black jurisdiction on the country to see prime empirical examples of the failures generated by unstructured families. You argue like monty pyons's black knight.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You conveniently left out the part where that kid will still be raised by a mother and a father.
You need only to look at every mostly black jurisdiction on the country to see prime empirical examples of the failures generated by unstructured families. You argue like monty pyons's black knight.

Actually I pointed out the fail part of your logic. You attempt to compare two parent to single parent homes as the root of the problem in the communities you point to.

Didn't "conveniently left" anything out.


>>>>