Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

[jillian]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

 

[Silhouette]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.

Psst...

A dozen or so states had Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action before the Obergefell ruling. Those include state votes, state judicial action, and state legislative actions.

Civil UNIONS vs regular marriage. I notice you tried the crossover hoping nobody would notice. The difference used to be that adoption agencies could more readily discern who would provide both a mother and father for life. That's the qualifier for the word "marriage". A UNION is a contract for other things that aren't true marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies that were APA-funded on "how gay marriage is good for kids" would be like the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies from Warren Jeffs on "how polygamy is good for kids". The ruling body at the APA these days is not unlike Mr. Jeffs in stark intolerance for heresy in its predetermined "conclusions"..ESPECIALLY when it comes to the LGBT Agenda.

 

[mdk]

Civil UNIONS vs regular marriage. I notice you tried the crossover hoping nobody would notice. The difference used to be that adoption agencies could more readily discern who would provide both a mother and father for life. That's the qualifier for the word "marriage". A UNION is a contract for other things that aren't true marriage.

Nobody is bound by the qualifiers you make up and foolishly apply to marriage. Not the law, not the courts, not other people...no one. Perhaps they do in Imaginationland but in the real world...not so much

 

[mdk]

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

You would have a point if The Prince's Trust Study in any way supports your anti-gay smears. It doesn't. You know and we know it.

Obsessing about this topic doesn't make you more irrelevant, it just makes you more pathetic.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Psst...

A dozen or so states had Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action before the Obergefell ruling. Those include state votes, state judicial action, and state legislative actions.


>>>>

Civil UNIONS vs regular marriage. I notice you tried the crossover hoping nobody would notice. The difference used to be that adoption agencies could more readily discern who would provide both a mother and father for life. That's the qualifier for the word "marriage". A UNION is a contract for other things that aren't true marriage.

Nope, not Civil Unions. Same-sex Civil MARRIAGE. Actually it was more than about a dozen, that was around the Windsor decision, the number increased prior to Obergefell.

I notice you try to call them Civil Unions trying to use a crossover when in fact they were Civil Marriages and hoping that nobody would notice.

• Connecticut – State Judicially - 2008
• 
  
• Delaware – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Illinois – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Iowa – State Judicially - 2009
• 
  
• Maine – Ballot – 2012
• 
  
• Maryland – Ballot - 2012
• 
  
• Massachusetts – State Judicially - 2004
• 
  
• Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
• 
  
• New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• New Jersey – State Judicially - 2013
• 
  
• New Mexico – State Judicially – 2013
• 
  
• New York – Legislatively - 2011
• 
  
• Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Vermont – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• Washington – Ballot - 2012

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Nope. As denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to change if a child has a mother or father. Your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'.

Worse, the Supreme Court has already found that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts kids. This is the formal finding of the Supreme Court and part of caselaw. Thus, by your own standards the Supreme Court was obligated to do exactly what it did: recognize same sex marriage.

As their solution actually benefits the children of same sex parents. While your 'solution', harms, humiliates and strips these children of the benefits and resources. In exchange for nothing, as you help not a single child.

Ignore the Supreme Court all you like. Just don't pretend that your gibberish is a 'legal' argument. As you must actively ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court to do it. And neither we nor any court are obligated to ignore what you do.

 

[Skylar]

Psst...

A dozen or so states had Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action before the Obergefell ruling. Those include state votes, state judicial action, and state legislative actions.


>>>>

Civil UNIONS vs regular marriage. I notice you tried the crossover hoping nobody would notice. The difference used to be that adoption agencies could more readily discern who would provide both a mother and father for life. That's the qualifier for the word "marriage". A UNION is a contract for other things that aren't true marriage.

Nope, not Civil Unions. Same-sex Civil MARRIAGE. Actually it was more than about a dozen, that was around the Windsor decision, the number increased prior to Obergefell.

I notice you try to call them Civil Unions trying to use a crossover when in fact they were Civil Marriages and hoping that nobody would notice.

• Connecticut – State Judicially - 2008
• 
  
• Delaware – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Illinois – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Iowa – State Judicially - 2009
• 
  
• Maine – Ballot – 2012
• 
  
• Maryland – Ballot - 2012
• 
  
• Massachusetts – State Judicially - 2004
• 
  
• Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
• 
  
• New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• New Jersey – State Judicially - 2013
• 
  
• New Mexico – State Judicially – 2013
• 
  
• New York – Legislatively - 2011
• 
  
• Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013
• 
  
• Vermont – Legislatively - 2009
• 
  
• Washington – Ballot - 2012

>>>>

Laughing.......wait, wait. Remember that Silly insisted that Ginsberg and Kagan had to recuse themselves because they officiated same sex marriages in Delware and DC? Now she's insisting that these weren't marriages, but civil unions.Killing her entire 'recuse' argument.

I love it when Silly gets her pseudo-legal gibberish twisted in a knot.

 

[Skylar]

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

You would have a point if The Prince's Trust Study in any way supports your anti-gay smears. It doesn't. You know and we know it.

Obsessing about this topic doesn't make you more irrelevant, it just makes you more pathetic.

Its just thumb sucking. Silly knows she's lying her ass off. That the Prince Trust study never so much as mentions gays, gay marriage, same sex parents, mothers, fathers or measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

And we know that she's lying her ass off. And she knows we know that she's lying her ass off. So why do it?

Its just one of Silly's self soothing reflexes. Comforting lies she tells herself while rocking back and forth. That no one, not even Silly, actually believe. But she likes to hear anyway.

 

[Skylar]

Silly.......you're done. You're insisting that the Supreme Court ruling is void because you disagree with its findings. But the validity of no Supreme Court ruling is based on agreement with you. Making all your inane babble about 'mistrials', 'void', 'illegal' and such just empty expressions of personal opinion that you repeat so you will feel better.

They have no actual relevance to the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

You are simply lying about Ferber. I have to wonder what happened to you in your childhood.

 

[Skylar]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

You are simply lying about Ferber. I have to wonder what happened to you in your childhood.

She's simply ignoring the standards of Ferber, by her own logic. See, in both Windsor and Obergefell the court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. Thus, per Silly's own argument on Ferber, the Court should have ruled exactly as they did in the Obergefell ruling.

What Silly is doing is ignoring the findings of the Obergefell and Windsor rulings. And then insisting that her personal opinions should be used in place of the findings of the Supreme Court. THEN she wants to apply her standards of Ferber. Her 'legal' argument is literally to ignore the Supreme Courts findings on the benefits to children of same sex marriage and the harm caused to children by denying same sex marriage.

Which, of course, is why she's always wrong when she attempts to tell us how a case is going to turn out.

And why her claims that gay marriage is 'void' is just more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Here is someone who's just as twisted as you. You should be able to relate to his way of thinking:

Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

Indiana state Rep. Woody Burton (R) recently compared the laws protecting LGBT people to protections for serial killers, pedophiles and even “fat white people.”

At a town hall event over the weekend, Burton made the case that sexual orientation was a “behavioral thing,” according to the Indy Star.
“You can’t control it sometimes. I understand that,” he opined. “If someone’s a psychopathic killer, it’s a behavior thing. They can’t help it. OK? Somebody’s a homosexual, maybe it’s a genetic thing. Maybe it’s not. They can’t help it. But it’s still a behavioral thing.”

‘Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

 

[Silhouette]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Here is someone who's just as twisted as you. You should be able to relate to his way of thinking:...Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’....Indiana state Rep. Woody Burton (R) recently compared the laws protecting LGBT people to protections for serial killers, pedophiles and even “fat white people.”

At a town hall event over the weekend, Burton made the case that sexual orientation was a “behavioral thing,” according to the Indy Star.
“You can’t control it sometimes. I understand that,” he opined. “If someone’s a psychopathic killer, it’s a behavior thing. They can’t help it. OK? Somebody’s a homosexual, maybe it’s a genetic thing. Maybe it’s not. They can’t help it. But it’s still a behavioral thing.”

‘Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

His point was a didactic device. It was to force people to think about the origins and similarities of overeating and being gay..and if these have "special class privelege as newly-ratified (by the Judicial) "civil rights"..

And that's why I was talking about the science and credibility behind the "studies" of the LGBT phenomenon on the previous page before you and your buddies spammed my points away. So here they are again below.

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies that were APA-funded on "how gay marriage is good for kids" would be like the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies from Warren Jeffs on "how polygamy is good for kids". The ruling body at the APA these days is not unlike Mr. Jeffs in stark intolerance for heresy in its predetermined "conclusions"..ESPECIALLY when it comes to the LGBT Agenda.

 

[Skylar]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Here is someone who's just as twisted as you. You should be able to relate to his way of thinking:...Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’....Indiana state Rep. Woody Burton (R) recently compared the laws protecting LGBT people to protections for serial killers, pedophiles and even “fat white people.”

At a town hall event over the weekend, Burton made the case that sexual orientation was a “behavioral thing,” according to the Indy Star.
“You can’t control it sometimes. I understand that,” he opined. “If someone’s a psychopathic killer, it’s a behavior thing. They can’t help it. OK? Somebody’s a homosexual, maybe it’s a genetic thing. Maybe it’s not. They can’t help it. But it’s still a behavioral thing.”

‘Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

His point was a didactic device. It was to force people to think about the origins and similarities of overeating and being gay..and if these have "special class privelege as newly-ratified (by the Judicial) "civil rights"..

And that's why I was talking about the science and credibility behind the "studies" of the LGBT phenomenon on the previous page before you and your buddies spammed my points away. So here they are again below.

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies that were APA-funded on "how gay marriage is good for kids" would be like the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies from Warren Jeffs on "how polygamy is good for kids". The ruling body at the APA these days is not unlike Mr. Jeffs in stark intolerance for heresy in its predetermined "conclusions"..ESPECIALLY when it comes to the LGBT Agenda.

You're straight up spamming now, Sil.

The Prince Trust Study doesn't mention gays, same sex parents, same sex parenting, mothers, fathers or measure th effects of any kind of parenting. You know this. You know we know it. You're thumb sucking.

You are insisting that the Obergefell ruling is 'illegal' and 'void' because you merely disagree with its findings. That's not a legal argument. As the validity of no ruling is based on your personal opinion. It doesn't matter if you agree with Obergefell. IT doesn't matter if you agree. Either way, the ruling is authoritative and enforced.

As same sex marriage being the law in 50 of 50 States demonstrates.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Here is someone who's just as twisted as you. You should be able to relate to his way of thinking:...Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’....Indiana state Rep. Woody Burton (R) recently compared the laws protecting LGBT people to protections for serial killers, pedophiles and even “fat white people.”

At a town hall event over the weekend, Burton made the case that sexual orientation was a “behavioral thing,” according to the Indy Star.
“You can’t control it sometimes. I understand that,” he opined. “If someone’s a psychopathic killer, it’s a behavior thing. They can’t help it. OK? Somebody’s a homosexual, maybe it’s a genetic thing. Maybe it’s not. They can’t help it. But it’s still a behavioral thing.”

‘Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

His point was a didactic device. It was to force people to think about the origins and similarities of overeating and being gay..and if these have "special class privelege as newly-ratified (by the Judicial) "civil rights"..

And that's why I was talking about the science and credibility behind the "studies" of the LGBT phenomenon on the previous page before you and your buddies spammed my points away. So here they are again below.

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies that were APA-funded on "how gay marriage is good for kids" would be like the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies from Warren Jeffs on "how polygamy is good for kids". The ruling body at the APA these days is not unlike Mr. Jeffs in stark intolerance for heresy in its predetermined "conclusions"..ESPECIALLY when it comes to the LGBT Agenda.

Now I’m going to use a didactic devise. As an obese person, he has a physical disability and therefore does have rights and protection, and unlike gay people, he has those rights and protections in every state. So, like you, he is given to lies. Furthermore, obesity may be due to a mental/emotional disorder, a genetic disorder or other physiological condition. Unlike being gay, for some obese people there are choices such as seeking medical or psychological help. We don’t know what this guy’s problem but we do know that he is full of shit, just like you.

As for your denial of credible evidence that children of gay parents do just as well as others, a couple of things…….first you are still harping on the Prince Trust Survey even after being smacked down on that on several other threads.

Secondly, all research on same sex parenting is not” promoted, put forth and funded by the APA” While the APA is indeed a credible source, there are many others which I have imparted to you in the past and which you have ignored or dismissed because they do not fit in with you bigoted agenda. So, I’m going to throw them at you again for the purpose of documenting your abject stupidity and insanity. Try not to gag on this:

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents

by David Perry

Contributor

Monday Jul 29, 2013

A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.

"Parents’ sexual orientation is not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.

The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children.

For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).

Here is more:

In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.

Here is a link to all the studies

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/


I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]

And more:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:


An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.


However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/


Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

• 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

• 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14
• 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :
  • Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."
  • Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

All or most of this was funded by universities, not the APA. I challenge you to refute any of it. If you can’t than just shut the fuck up

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

Here is someone who's just as twisted as you. You should be able to relate to his way of thinking:...Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’....Indiana state Rep. Woody Burton (R) recently compared the laws protecting LGBT people to protections for serial killers, pedophiles and even “fat white people.”

At a town hall event over the weekend, Burton made the case that sexual orientation was a “behavioral thing,” according to the Indy Star.
“You can’t control it sometimes. I understand that,” he opined. “If someone’s a psychopathic killer, it’s a behavior thing. They can’t help it. OK? Somebody’s a homosexual, maybe it’s a genetic thing. Maybe it’s not. They can’t help it. But it’s still a behavioral thing.”

‘Fat all my life’ lawmaker opposes LGBT rights because there are no special laws for ‘fat white people’

His point was a didactic device. It was to force people to think about the origins and similarities of overeating and being gay..and if these have "special class privelege as newly-ratified (by the Judicial) "civil rights"..

And that's why I was talking about the science and credibility behind the "studies" of the LGBT phenomenon on the previous page before you and your buddies spammed my points away. So here they are again below.

The credible science proves children are not harmed by being raised by same sex parents.

Your personal biases don't get to be legislated into law.

Again you need to get over your obvious hysteria on this issue.

"Credible science" is code for "The APA which is not even close to bashful about openly promoting the LGBT agenda". All studies promoted, put forth and funded by the APA are immediately suspect of bias. A biased study is not a credible one when it comes to data gathering for the purposes of reflecting reality and truth. Sorry.

Are you saying the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind that measures the adjustment of youth and young adults "isn't credible"? So from your POV, the small sampling with prejudice done by APA-connected "science" is "more credible" than very large surveys done by the British Government?

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science".. (For the points I made about the neo-APA using small sampling...preferring...I shit you not..."words over numbers" and "consensual conclusions" rather than deductive ones made purely on observable facts. You know what "consensual conclusions" are in reality? Cult values. They even have a body assigned to "oversee" (audit) findings so that they fall in line with the party-think. Read the link. The APA is dead and so are all the studies they promoted to the SCOTUS on this question...

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies that were APA-funded on "how gay marriage is good for kids" would be like the SCOTUS blindly accepting studies from Warren Jeffs on "how polygamy is good for kids". The ruling body at the APA these days is not unlike Mr. Jeffs in stark intolerance for heresy in its predetermined "conclusions"..ESPECIALLY when it comes to the LGBT Agenda.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage and child rearing 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 supporting the claim that parenting by same sex parents was harming children, this sort of deception would not be necessary. You trash the APA but the bias of the Heritage Foundation is profound and legendary.

Furthermore, as I have said before, since parenting and marriage are separate issues, it is not even a relevant argument. I don’t expect that we will be hearing any more from you after this unless you are so delusional or stupid to think that you can counter any of this.

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

Subsequently:

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

 

[Silhouette]

None of that stuff has to do with the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY nor the amicus briefs submitted by adult children raised in gay homes. (link in my signature). There are no "lengths" to go to when it comes to the constant drum beat we've heard for many decades now about the statistics around boys growing up without dads particularly. You aren't going to sell your load of tripe to a populace whose basic common sense dictates that boys need fathers and girls need mothers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

None of that stuff has to do with the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY nor the amicus briefs submitted by adult children raised in gay homes. (link in my signature). There are no "lengths" to go to when it comes to the constant drum beat we've heard for many decades now about the statistics around boys growing up without dads particularly. You aren't going to sell your load of tripe to a populace whose basic common sense dictates that boys need fathers and girls need mothers.

So you're replying to my two lengthy posts that contain reams of documentation to support my position with a repeat of the some tired and debunked horseshit that you cannot really support whatsoever. Thank you for confirming the fact that you are so blinded by your bigotry that you can't see the abject stupidity that you are attempting to sell us. Get over it. Same sex marriage is here to stay and gay folks will continue to raise healthy and happy children. We are done here.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

None of that stuff has to do with the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY nor the amicus briefs submitted by adult children raised in gay homes. (link in my signature). There are no "lengths" to go to when it comes to the constant drum beat we've heard for many decades now about the statistics around boys growing up without dads particularly. You aren't going to sell your load of tripe to a populace whose basic common sense dictates that boys need fathers and girls need mothers.

Quartet of Truth”: The Unimpressive Christian Weapon Against Same-Sex Marriage “Quartet of Truth”: The Unimpressive Christian Weapon Against Same-Sex Marriage

As Ford notes, Lopez, Stefanowicz, Klein, and Faust are children whose biological parents split prior to their being raised in a same-sex household, which quite possibly contributed to the negative association with their parents’ later relationships. But even if that were not so, what bearing does that have on the case? If miserable childhood experiences are the measuring stick for marriage rights, patriarchal, “spare the rod, spoil the child” Christians would find themselves in a bad spot pretty quickly.

I could find more examples of horrible, abusive parenting (not just kids who feel they were shortchanged, but children who were actually thrown out, severely beaten, etc.) from a single church I’ve attended than the combined gripes, real and imagined, of the Quartet.

The fact is, in any group, some parents get it right, and some don’t. Some do a good job; some don’t. That a handful of kids believe homosexuality is a sin and don’t think they got the most out of life because they didn’t have a “vital dual-gender influence,” is pretty much irrelevant to whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Unless all the kids from broken, abusive, and generally miserable heterosexual families are evidence that heterosexual marriage is a flawed and terrible construct that simply ruins kids’ lives…

Ford also notes that the group’s claims target more than just gay couples:

… Stefanowicz claims that “children do best when they are raised by their married, biological mother and father.” By specifying “biological,” she is simultaneously making the case against all forms of adoption and foster care. Klein goes so far as to talk about couples who can’t have their own children as engaging in “human trafficking,” and in a strange twist on opposing a woman’s choice, chastises women interested in serving as surrogates as “breeding stock.” Lopez regularly compares adoptive parents to slaveowners and their children to “chattel,” describing any parenting that deprives children of one of their biological parents as “child abuse.”