US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Skylar]

OK, I won't ignore them.

Of course you will. You'll just give us yet another excuse for why you'll ignore any study that contradicts you. Despite the studies you're ignoring immediately addressing the issues you claim to be discussing: the mental and physical health of children of same sex parents While the study you cite doesn't address this at all.

Let's take a closer look at them compared to the Prince's Trust Study.

Lets. Each of the studies I've cited address the issue of the physical, mental and emotional health of the children of same sex couples. The very issue you claim to have interest in. The overwhelming consensus of these studies is that these children are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero households. And better adjusted than children from single parent households.

The Prince Study doesn't measure anything you claim to be concerned with. It doesn't measure the effects of a two parent household compared to a one parent household. It doesn't measure same sex families vs. hetero families. Every extrapolation of such is you citing you. Not the study.

All while ignoring the legion of studies that explicitly contradict you and directly address the mental and physical health of children in same sex households. That's just silly.

There's no logical reason that the courts would ignore the overwhelming consensus of study after study that directly addresses this issue in favor of one study that doesn't address these issues at all.

All of your studies are done with children still in the LGBT homes, under the influence of the adults there still. Your studies have a max of 500 children (combined from 15 separate studies, averaging 33 children per "study").

Just as every study measuring the mental and physical health of children in hetero households does. Its an apples to apples comparison, using the same standards and same circumstances. And it finds virtually the same results. You simply don't like the findings of the studies. So you imagine an elaborate conspiracy where homosexual parents tell their children to lie.

And back that claim with exactly nothing.

No court is going to ignore the findings of these studies based on your imagination of a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of gay parents scattered across the planet. Rendering your assertions both factually baseless and legally irrelevant. As they will have no impact on the outcome of any case.

Nor ever have.

The Prince's trust study in contrast relies on grown children not in the home, around age 25 whose lives and troubles have been studied emperically; they are free of influence the day before of adults leaning in their ear with emphasis saying "be sure to tell the lady tomorrow that we are really happy...or they might have to take you away!"

The Prince Study never addresses nor measures the mental and physical health of children in same sex families. Rendering it irrelevant to a discussion of the mental and physical health of children in same sex families.

While the overwhelming consensus of studies that do address this issue directly and specifically show that children of same sex couples are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero couples.

You can't get around that. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it.

 

[Silhouette]

Remember what I said on the previous page before Syriusly spammed it off in grave fear of someone else getting to read it:

Numerous studies have directly addressed the mental, emotional and psychological health of children in same sex households. The consensus of these studies is that the children are health.
And you ignore every single one of them

OK, I won't ignore them. Let's take a closer look at them compared to the Prince's Trust Study. All of your studies are done with children still in the LGBT homes, under the influence of the adults there still. Your studies have a max of 500 children (combined from 15 separate studies, averaging 33 children per "study").

The Prince's trust study in contrast relies on grown children not in the home, around age 25 whose lives and troubles have been studied emperically; they are free of influence the day before of adults leaning in their ear with emphasis saying "be sure to tell the lady tomorrow that we are really happy...or they might have to take you away!" Interesting to note that most British studies lean heavily in favor of gay issues. The Prince's trust study was of over 2,000 individuals, not 33. And it wasn't even about gay anything. It was simply about people of a given gender growing up without a parental role model of that same gender...the detrimental outfall in their own adult lives as a result.

From your first link: Children of same sex parents healthier Study

Children of same-sex parents have above average health and wellbeing, research by the University of Melbourne shows.
The research was based on data from the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, which involved input from 315 same-sex parents and a total of 500 children. Of these participating families, 80 percent had female parents while 18 percent had male parents

So 315 same-sex parents and their captives (children still in the home under the influence of the adult's authority there) self-reported that "our kids are just great!" This self-reportage is in direct conflict with the Prince's Trust survey of grown children without both parents, the largest survey of its kind.

From your second link: Same-sex Parents and Their Children (which is from a Gay-serving website, written on funds from the APA, a gay-oriented formerly scientific institution that instead now relies upon what's called "CQR" or audited group-think, where "researchers" are encouraged to discard data in favor of what their peers pressure them to say. Not kidding. Read about it here: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum In any event, here's what your link provides "casually" woven into the heavily biased dialogue:

Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents

(That would not include the Prince's Trust study below, the largest survey of its kind of the actual people (grown children) from homes without both genders as parents)

From your third link: Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine - CBS News

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children....Evidence-based studies are important in helping pediatricians in their practices and creating policy for the future..

On more than 500 children? The Prince's Trust survey was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds That means that they were out of the home, out of the influence of their parents, where that pressure wasn't part of the "unreported potential error" for the "15 studies of 500 children under the influence of those homes still". And the Prince's Trust survey was 4 x larger than all those 15 studies put together. I note with irony that your third link says how important evidence-based studies are, when the APA (the largest source of funding for all LGBT American "studies") practices "CQR" which from the link of the drugged by by lesbians describes as follows:

More directly accessed here by following this link: Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

That, folks, is how cults operate. This cult is funding most of the studies you are citing.
From your fourth link: Interview with Lesbian and Gay Parenting Expert Dr. Abbie Goldberg

Dr Abbie Goldberg is the author of Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle published by The American Psychological Association. What almost all of the studies have found is that same-sex parents do just as good a job as opposite sex parents

Yes..."almost all" "the studies have found"... CQR would demand consensus within the APA over data. The one exception to "almost all" would be the Prince's Trust survey of grown children reporting without fear of repurcussions, what was ACTUALLY going on in their heads. I tend to give a survey like that more weight becuase it would be freer from undue influence and not funded by a "scientific outfit" that favors discarding data in preference to "what feels right to the group...of pro-LGBT researchers"...

***********
Again, the Prince's Trust Study:

The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that young people without a positive figure of the same gender are 67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts.

The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[Skylar]

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

It says nothing about the mental health of children in same sex households. It doesn't measure single parent households, two parent households, hetero households, same sex households, the source of positive rolemodels, anything.

Every extrapolation you've drawn from the Prince Study about same sex parents is you. Not the study.

While study after study that has directly addressed the issue of the mental and physical health of same sex parenting has shown overwhelmingly, that these children are as emotionally and physically healthy as their hetero led family counterparts.

So you ignore them and imagine elaborate conspiracies where gay paernts compel their children to lie. Backed by nothing.

No court nor rational person will similarly ignore what you do. Nor will your imagination of a vast international conspiracy of homosexual parents have any effect on any ruling. As its meaningless clap trap.

 

[Silhouette]

No, my extrapolations are from what I read about the American Psychological Association's "CQR" sanctioned new methods of gathering data for public consumption. Small samples, biased open ended group-audited "conclusions" that have to be audited by a power grid at the APA before they can be released "as legitimate"..

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..

 

[Skylar]

Remember what I said on the previous page before Syriusly spammed it off in grave fear of someone else getting to read it:

You just spammed the exact same post, after having spammed the Prince Study no less than a dozen times in this thread alone. You are literally engaged in the very behavior you claim to oppose.

Worse, you didn't address the reply to the very post you spammed. You didn't shore up any of the truck sized holesin your claims. You wouldn't even acknoweldge a reply exists.

It did. Here it again. Do try and address the issues directly;

OK, I won't ignore them.

Of course you will. You'll just give us yet another excuse for why you'll ignore any study that contradicts you. Despite the studies you're ignoring immediately addressing the issues you claim to be discussing: the mental and physical health of children of same sex parents While the study you cite doesn't address this at all.

Let's take a closer look at them compared to the Prince's Trust Study.

Lets. Each of the studies I've cited address the issue of the physical, mental and emotional health of the children of same sex couples. The very issue you claim to have interest in. The overwhelming consensus of these studies is that these children are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero households. And better adjusted than children from single parent households.

The Prince Study doesn't measure anything you claim to be concerned with. It doesn't measure the effects of a two parent household compared to a one parent household. It doesn't measure same sex families vs. hetero families. Every extrapolation of such is you citing you. Not the study.

All while ignoring the legion of studies that explicitly contradict you and directly address the mental and physical health of children in same sex households. That's just silly.

There's no logical reason that the courts would ignore the overwhelming consensus of study after study that directly addresses this issue in favor of one study that doesn't address these issues at all.

All of your studies are done with children still in the LGBT homes, under the influence of the adults there still. Your studies have a max of 500 children (combined from 15 separate studies, averaging 33 children per "study").

Just as every study measuring the mental and physical health of children in hetero households does. Its an apples to apples comparison, using the same standards and same circumstances. And it finds virtually the same results. You simply don't like the findings of the studies. So you imagine an elaborate conspiracy where homosexual parents tell their children to lie.

And back that claim with exactly nothing.

No court is going to ignore the findings of these studies based on your imagination of a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of gay parents scattered across the planet. Rendering your assertions both factually baseless and legally irrelevant. As they will have no impact on the outcome of any case.

Nor ever have.

The Prince's trust study in contrast relies on grown children not in the home, around age 25 whose lives and troubles have been studied emperically; they are free of influence the day before of adults leaning in their ear with emphasis saying "be sure to tell the lady tomorrow that we are really happy...or they might have to take you away!"

The Prince Study never addresses nor measures the mental and physical health of children in same sex families. Rendering it irrelevant to a discussion of the mental and physical health of children in same sex families.

While the overwhelming consensus of studies that do address this issue directly and specifically show that children of same sex couples are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero couples.

You can't get around that. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it. And as your spamming without addressing any reply demosntrates, you can't make your argument work nor shore up the truck sized holes within it.

Can you understand why the record of failure of your ilk on this issue is essentially perfect? Why Kennedy has cited the harm caused to children by the lack of recognition to marriage but never any of your imagination?

Think on it. As it will likely be the basis of a ruling that explicitly contradicts what you choose to believe.

 

[Skylar]

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

Oh wonderful. Now you've imagined yet another vast conspiracy backed by exactly jack shit. First it was all the gay parents compelling their children to lie to researchers.......backed by nothing but your imagination. Now its a vast conspiracy of the researchers themselves. Again, backed by nothing but your imagination.

And this hapless fit of conspiracy laden imagination with no supporting evidence to back it is supposed to compel the courts to ignore the overwhelming consensus of studies on the matter both domestically and abroad? Your baseless ramblings are going to convince the courts to ignore the immediate legal harm done to both same sex couples and their children .......harm that the courts have already recognized as occuring when the marriage of same sex parents isn't recognized?

Um, no. Your batshyte conspiracy babble isn't relevant unless you can prove it. And you can't. All you can do is imagine them. And your imagination isn't evidence, legal or otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

Besides the harm done to children is the harm done to democracy itself:

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit federal court of appeals addresses the damage to democracy on behalf of the LGBT cult here: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8
Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution. Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations

CLEARLY the lower courts that stripped away states' powers on marriage did so in violation of federal procedure. The judges involved should be impeached. They do not enjoy the luxury of overturning either Baker or Windsor from underneath.....most especially and insidiously, (seditiously) when that aim is to disenfranchise 100s of millions of Citizens to govern themselves within their states' borders.

The lower courts that did that have violated the civil rights of over 100 million people. These actions by those judges are one of the largest torpedos launched at our Constitution since the founding of the country. It is no small matter to turn to an entire state, in violation of most recently Upheld Constitutional Law (Windsor 2013) and say "sorry, we two judges are removing your civil rights to democracy and self rule because we feel like it". (not from precedent certainly)

 

[Syriusly]

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?

Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:
..

Nothing about homosexuals or children growing up with two homosexual parents at all.

Nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

Besides the harm done to children is the harm done to democracy itself:

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit federal court of appeals addresses the damage to democracy on behalf of the LGBT cult here: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8
Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution. Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations

CLEARLY the lower courts that stripped away states' powers on marriage did so in violation of federal procedure. The judges involved should be impeached. )

Clearly if the Supreme Court agreed with you, they would have accepted those cases from the lower courts and over-ruled those judges.

Clearly the Supreme Court did not agree with you- the Supreme Court left those rulings stand.

Clearly you just want to impeach any judge which disagrees with you

 

[Montrovant]

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?

Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

From the study:

"Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track"


Noted that Syriusly spammed five posts in a row trying to disappear my response to the CQR bullshit studies her coworker "Skylar" at nerve-center in San Francisco posted at the top of the page. Syriusly, I've copied the post and I will continue it to another page. And whenever you do that, I know immediately that I've touched upon something you DO NOT want the general public to see..

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..

I wonder if you are really unable to understand the difference between one aspect of a survey and the entire purpose of a survey, or if you are just trolling.

This quote is actually from the Youth Index which you have linked so often :

This is our third annual Youth Index, gauging the
happiness of young people across a range of areas
from family life to physical and emotional health.

Do you see that it says nothing about gay parents or same gender role models? That is because, by their own words, the Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index is about the overall happiness of young people. There are numerous factors taken into consideration as to why the various young people are or are not happy. While positive role models is one of the things brought up in the 2011 Index, it is only one. In fact, the report indicates that being in education, employment or training has the greatest effect on the happiness of the youths involved.

So, no, the survey is NOT about same gender role models. The survey is about overall happiness. More, recent Youth Indexes have not paid any attention to positive role models which, if it were what the survey is about and the most important factor, as you claim, seems very unlikely. Are you unable or simply unwilling to admit you are mistaken about the purpose of the survey?

 

[Syriusly]

No, my extrapolations are from what I..

Hear in your own head.

I am no psychologists, but I am qualified enough to say based upon your posting history- you are delusional.

 

[Montrovant]

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?

Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

From the study:

"Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track"


Noted that Syriusly spammed five posts in a row trying to disappear my response to the CQR bullshit studies her coworker "Skylar" at nerve-center in San Francisco posted at the top of the page. Syriusly, I've copied the post and I will continue it to another page. And whenever you do that, I know immediately that I've touched upon something you DO NOT want the general public to see..

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..

I'd also like to know just where in the 2011 Youth Index the quote you posted is. I've searched the document and been unable to find that quote in it. Are you once again quoting an article about the document and passing it off as a quote from the document itself?

 

[Skylar]

Besides the harm done to children is the harm done to democracy itself:

There is no harm being done to children as study after study has confirmed. You're basing your assumptions in a series of increasingly bizarre imaginary international conspiracies involving gay parents, psychiatric researchers, and prominent psychiatric organizations that have been 'infiltrated' by 'cults'.

A batshit conspiracy you can't back with anything more than your ability to type the claim.

As for 'damage to democracy', the is no authority to vote away the rights of the people. As the Windsor court made ludicrously clear, state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Any State law that violates those constitutional guarantees without a valid reason and a compelling state interest is invalid.

And no such valid reason nor compelling state interest exists for denying gay marriage. While the harm caused to both the same sex couple and their children by the denial of marriage rights has been recognized and exquisitely detailed by Kennedy in the Windsor decision.

Its highly unlikely that Kennedy is going to ignore himself and instead accept your imagination as the basis his ruling on gay marriage

 

[Syriusly]

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?

Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

From the study:

"Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track"


Noted that Syriusly spammed five posts in a row trying to disappear my response to the CQR bullshit studies her coworker "Skylar" at nerve-center in San Francisco posted at the top of the page. Syriusly, I've copied the post and I will continue it to another page. And whenever you do that, I know immediately that I've touched upon something you DO NOT want the general public to see..

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..

I'd also like to know just where in the 2011 Youth Index the quote you posted is. I've searched the document and been unable to find that quote in it. Are you once again quoting an article about the document and passing it off as a quote from the document itself?

Don't be shocked by that- Silhouette is impervious to the facts. She still refers to an essay by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall as a study by the Mayo Clinic.....even though it was only published in their publication. She also sometimes quotes herself when referring to other quotes......which gets even more bizarre.

 

[Skylar]

Don't be shocked by that- Silhouette is impervious to the facts. She still refers to an essay by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall as a study by the Mayo Clinic.....even though it was only published in their publication. She also sometimes quotes herself when referring to other quotes......which gets even more bizarre.

My favorite was when Silo quoted herself as Edith Windsor......and completely fucked up the question being asked of the Windsor court to rule upon. I mean, it wasn't even close.

And Silo still refuses to admit she was wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you see that it says nothing about gay parents or same gender role models? That is because, by their own words, the Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index is about the overall happiness of young people. There are numerous factors taken into consideration as to why the various young people are or are not happy. While positive role models is one of the things brought up in the 2011 Index, it is only one. In fact, the report indicates that being in education, employment or training has the greatest effect on the happiness of the youths involved....So, no, the survey is NOT about same gender role models.

Then explain this quote: "Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track"

Not: "Young people without good role models. They specified male-male role model and female-female role model.

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?
Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

I provided the link to the actual study, as you well know. Here it is again. http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf People quote articles about studies all the time..

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..[/QUOTE]

I'd also like to know just where in the 2011 Youth Index the quote you posted is. I've searched the document and been unable to find that quote in it. Are you once again quoting an article about the document and passing it off as a quote from the document itself?[/QUOTE]

 

[Montrovant]

Do you see that it says nothing about gay parents or same gender role models? That is because, by their own words, the Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index is about the overall happiness of young people. There are numerous factors taken into consideration as to why the various young people are or are not happy. While positive role models is one of the things brought up in the 2011 Index, it is only one. In fact, the report indicates that being in education, employment or training has the greatest effect on the happiness of the youths involved....So, no, the survey is NOT about same gender role models.

Then explain this quote: "Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track"

Not: "Young people without good role models. They specified male-male role model and female-female role model.

You are at best being disingenuous about the Youth Index Silhouette, if you are not simply lying. It was not about children growing up without same-gender role models. That was merely one aspect of the overall survey, which is about general happiness in the given age group. In fact, the actual Index is pretty vague about whether the respondents are missing a same gender role model entirely or merely missing a positive one. I have look at the Index you keep linking, have you?
Also, you post quotes as though they are coming from your link when they are not. It's dishonest to post a link to the Youth Index and then provide quotes from an article about that document rather than the document itself.

I provided the link to the actual study, as you well know. Here it is again. http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf People quote articles about studies all the time..

It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

Once again, the "methodology" used by APA-funded studies called "CQR"

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

The "CQR" method is the ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND HOW IT IS DONE.

1. Unbiased, clean data collecting

2. Focused inquisition

3. Large samples, the largest possible when surveying...ALWAYS!

4. Reliance on data and NEVER assumptions.!!!

Oh, and don't forget, when you're all done collecting your tiny samples that you've focused a bias on from the get-go, using open-ended assumptions to arrive at "solid conclusions the public can rely on"...don't forget to stop by Der Fuhrer's Office at the APA to make sure your findings are audited properly by top command...or you'll never do research again..or receive funding..

Welcome to the Brave New World. CQR-Style...kids' ACTUAL wellbeing be damned..

I'd also like to know just where in the 2011 Youth Index the quote you posted is. I've searched the document and been unable to find that quote in it. Are you once again quoting an article about the document and passing it off as a quote from the document itself?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Good job spamming your inane blather again!

I explained that role models are only one part of the 2011 Youth Index. I read that report, as well as a couple of the more recent ones, but I get the impression you have not. I'll repeat this on the off chance you actually read these posts instead of just automatically replying with the same tired, repetitive crap : The Prince's Trust Youth Index is about overall happiness. How positive role models relate to that is only one aspect of the overall report. The report is NOT simply about same gender role models. If you think it is, you have not actually read the report you've linked over and over again.

Sure, people quote articles about studies all the time. However, when you imply or, as you have done, outright claim that the quote is from the study, rather than an article about the study, not only are you lying but you may well be violating the terms of use of this message board.

Maybe, Silhouette, you'll read this and realize you should be a bit more accurate with your quotes and claims....but everything I've seen from you indicates to me that no, you don't care a whit about accuracy or honesty. You're going to keep shouting out the same arguments with the same misquotes and same mistakes and lies, whether they are relevant to the post you reply to or not.

 

[Skylar]

Super-handy if you're trying to control the conclusions for purposes of manipulating public perception for say...oh...A CULT..

Oh wonderful. Now you've imagined yet another vast conspiracy backed by exactly jack shit. First it was all the gay parents compelling their children to lie to researchers.......backed by nothing but your imagination. Now its a vast conspiracy of the researchers themselves 'infiltrated' by a 'cult'. Again, backed by nothing but your imagination.

And this hapless fit of conspiracy laden imagination with no supporting evidence to back it is supposed to compel the courts to ignore the overwhelming consensus of studies on the matter both domestically and abroad? Your baseless ramblings are going to convince the courts to ignore the immediate legal harm done to both same sex couples and their children .......harm that the courts have already recognized as occuring when the marriage of same sex parents isn't recognized?

Um, no. Your batshyte conspiracy babble isn't relevant unless you can prove it. And you can't. All you can do is imagine them. And your imagination isn't evidence, legal or otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you see that it says nothing about gay parents or same gender role models? That is because, by their own words, the Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index is about the overall happiness of young people. There are numerous factors taken into consideration as to why the various young people are or are not happy. While positive role models is one of the things brought up in the 2011 Index, it is only one. In fact, the report indicates that being in education, employment or training has the greatest effect on the happiness of the youths involved....So, no, the survey is NOT about same gender role models.

I explained that role models are only one part of the 2011 Youth Index. I read that report, as well as a couple of the more recent ones, but I get the impression you have not. I'll repeat this on the off chance you actually read these posts instead of just automatically replying with the same tired, repetitive crap : The Prince's Trust Youth Index is about overall happiness. How positive role models relate to that is only one aspect of the overall report. The report is NOT simply about same gender role models. If you think it is, you have not actually read the report you've linked over and over again.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf People quote articles about studies all the time..
It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

FROM THE ACTUAL PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Prince's Trust study is the largest of its kind. Not like the APA that likes theirs small and very easy to "extrapolate from for public consumption"..Again, brought to you by the American Psychological Association (APA):

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

 

[Skylar]

Do you see that it says nothing about gay parents or same gender role models? That is because, by their own words, the Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index is about the overall happiness of young people. There are numerous factors taken into consideration as to why the various young people are or are not happy. While positive role models is one of the things brought up in the 2011 Index, it is only one. In fact, the report indicates that being in education, employment or training has the greatest effect on the happiness of the youths involved....So, no, the survey is NOT about same gender role models.

I explained that role models are only one part of the 2011 Youth Index. I read that report, as well as a couple of the more recent ones, but I get the impression you have not. I'll repeat this on the off chance you actually read these posts instead of just automatically replying with the same tired, repetitive crap : The Prince's Trust Youth Index is about overall happiness. How positive role models relate to that is only one aspect of the overall report. The report is NOT simply about same gender role models. If you think it is, you have not actually read the report you've linked over and over again.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf People quote articles about studies all the time..
It absolutely was about children growing up without same gender roles:

FROM THE ACTUAL PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Again, brought to you by the American Psychological Association (APA):

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

As you've already admitted, the Prince Study doesn't measure anything you claim to be concerned with. It doesn't measure the effects of a two parent household compared to a one parent household. It doesn't measure same sex families vs. hetero families. Every extrapolation of such is you citing you. Not the study.

When same sex households and their children are examined, the overwhelming consensus of these studies is that these children are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero households. And better adjusted than children from single parent households. The exact opposite of your claim.

The Prince Study never addresses nor measures the mental and physical health of children in same sex families. Rendering it irrelevant to a discussion of the mental and physical health of children in same sex families.

While the overwhelming consensus of studies that do address this issue directly and specifically show that children of same sex couples are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero couples.

You can't get around that. You can ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it.