We're Getting Married!

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So, you believe that what studies show about children of same sex parents is the most important factor?

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

Pretty legit I would think

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Oh Seawytch...You are family in a way, so I hate to disagree. When did SmarterThanTheAverageBear say gays make him feel icky and so forth? (To be honest I know a few too who turn my stomach). I also know lesbians who are hateful bitches, but only a few.

Oh. Me, my husband and friends call each other "fags" occasionally. It's meant to dilute the effect of words used by real homophobes and bigots.

Shut up fag

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, you probably would say that, but that is because you are a homophobic bigot who gets their talking points from Fox.

Fox News, Keith Ablow Misinform About Transgender Child

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Oh Seawytch...You are family in a way, so I hate to disagree. When did SmarterThanTheAverageBear say gays make him feel icky and so forth? (To be honest I know a few too who turn my stomach). I also know lesbians who are hateful bitches, but only a few.

Oh. Me, my husband and friends call each other "fags" occasionally. It's meant to dilute the effect of words used by real homophobes and bigots.

I know people don't like to face this reality, but it is a reality. You and your GAY friends calling each other F word for gay man is not the same as a bigot like DumbFuckBear using it. He does not use it in jest as you do, he uses it with complete animus.

And sorry, but by reading his posts, I can see nothing but loathing and animus from him regarding gays. That he doesn't wish to deny us the fundamental right of civil marriage does not make him less of a bigot. I agree with the SCOTUS that murderers on death row have a fundamental right to marry, I'm still bigoted towards them.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In your world men are not needed. In your world some men are not men, and some women are not women. In your world people cutting off perfectly good body parts because they have obvious psychological issues should be supported, and no doubt paid for by the government or insurance companies (the people). This is the problem with lefitst in general there are no absolutes anymore.

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

I think that studies should be considered on determining whether children should be in the households of any parents.

But not all studies are equal, and someone has to determine what the preponderance of evidence is.

And applying the same standards to all parenting- 'what is best for children'- rather than just 'can we find evidence against gay parents'

Oh, I agree. I just posted a pretty lengthy study that shows that on average children of gays (lesbians in particular) don't do very well. That certainly doesn't mean ALL children of lesbian parents are worse off than ALL children of biological parents. And I never implied that, but SeaBytch clearly says OUR children in the plural sense of all gays are no worse off than straight parents. I just posted a study which proves she is wrong. As a group, children of lesbians are worse off than children of straights.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, Howey I fear and loathe you so much that if you should find yourself in SW Missouri you give me a call and the steak dinner is on me (not a tube steak you silly queer) Hell, bring your man even , he can talk clothes with my wife while we watch the game.

 

[Seawytch]

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

View attachment 35006


Pretty legit I would think

Now, see...this is the perfect example of the type of study that a homophobic bigot would provide...and not bother to look up all the panning of the study that has been done by actual medical professionals.

This study was even laughed out of court.

Well done, homophobe!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

View attachment 35006


Pretty legit I would think

Now, see...this is the perfect example of the type of study that a homophobic bigot would provide...and not bother to look up all the panning of the study that has been done by actual medical professionals.

This study was even laughed out of court.

Well done, homophobe!

LOL @ idiots who dismiss studies that say what they don't want to hear out of hand. Produce a study that claims that overall children of gays are as well off as children of biological parents and was written by someone as renowned as Mark Regnerus and you wont see me taking the childish tactic of attacking the legitimacy of it.

Oh that,s rigth, you ARE a child.

By the way, which court laughed this study out of it?

 

[Seawytch]

I see that in your world, you still aren't providing any facts or studies to back up your assertions. Funny that...

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

I think that studies should be considered on determining whether children should be in the households of any parents.

But not all studies are equal, and someone has to determine what the preponderance of evidence is.

And applying the same standards to all parenting- 'what is best for children'- rather than just 'can we find evidence against gay parents'

Oh, I agree. I just posted a pretty lengthy study that shows that on average children of gays (lesbians in particular) don't do very well. That certainly doesn't mean ALL children of lesbian parents are worse off than ALL children of biological parents. And I never implied that, but SeaBytch clearly says OUR children in the plural sense of all gays are no worse off than straight parents. I just posted a study which proves she is wrong. As a group, children of lesbians are worse off than children of straights.

No, you provided a study by a disgraced homophobe like yourself.

Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay 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 LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.
​

Michigan Courtroom Deals Fake Anti-Gay Research Strategy A Stinging Blow

In attendance were scholars such as Mark Regnerus, a sociologist who sparked controversy after he published a 2012 journal article funded by religious conservatives arguing that children of same-sex parents fared worse than others—even though he never studied children of same-sex parents. Regnerus’ study wascondemned in a letter by 200 scholarly peers and his own university departmentissued a stern rebuke calling the study “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.” An internal audit found “serious flaws and distortions” and concluded the paper never should have been published.[...]​

The grooming of conservative experts appeared to be falling into place when Michigan called Regnerus and three other witnesses to describe research allegedly showing gay marriage and parenting harms kids. Regnerus testified that, based on his research, he believed “we aren’t anywhere near saying there's conclusive evidence” that children of gay parents fare as well as others, and that, “until we get more evidence, we should be skeptical” of any such claims. “The most prudent thing to do,” he concluded, “is wait and evaluate some of these changes over time before making any radical moves around marriage.”

But on cross-examination by the ACLU’s Leslie Cooper, Regnerus’ testimony quickly broke down. Cooper forced Regnerus to admit that he had sought to conceal the role of conservative funders and of his religious faith in influencing his research, both of which were later revealed with smoking gun evidence from his prior words. He acknowledged that he was “not a fan of same sex marriage” before he started his research and that his opposition to it was not primarily based on his research conclusions. And he had to concede that he had singled out gay couples in opposing their right to marry based on alleged family instability: Aware that African-Americans, the poor, step-families and divorced people are all at higher statistical risk of marital collapse and family instability, he nonetheless had no strong opinion on whether those folks should be banned from marrying—just gays, strongly suggesting his views are rooted in bias above all.[...]

Judge Friedman didn’t fall for any of it. “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

 

[Seawytch]

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

View attachment 35006


Pretty legit I would think

Now, see...this is the perfect example of the type of study that a homophobic bigot would provide...and not bother to look up all the panning of the study that has been done by actual medical professionals.

This study was even laughed out of court.

Well done, homophobe!

LOL @ idiots who dismiss studies that say what they don't want to hear out of hand. Produce a study that claims that overall children of gays are as well off as children of biological parents and was written by someone as renowned as Mark Regnerus and you wont see me taking the childish tactic of attacking the legitimacy of it.

Oh that,s rigth, you ARE a child.

By the way, which court laughed this study out of it?

See above, bigot. All true. Panned by scientists and laughed out of court...and posted by homophobic bigots despite it all...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You wait for studies. I state the obvious,

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

I think that studies should be considered on determining whether children should be in the households of any parents.

But not all studies are equal, and someone has to determine what the preponderance of evidence is.

And applying the same standards to all parenting- 'what is best for children'- rather than just 'can we find evidence against gay parents'

Oh, I agree. I just posted a pretty lengthy study that shows that on average children of gays (lesbians in particular) don't do very well. That certainly doesn't mean ALL children of lesbian parents are worse off than ALL children of biological parents. And I never implied that, but SeaBytch clearly says OUR children in the plural sense of all gays are no worse off than straight parents. I just posted a study which proves she is wrong. As a group, children of lesbians are worse off than children of straights.

No, you provided a study by a disgraced homophobe like yourself.

Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay 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 LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.
​

Michigan Courtroom Deals Fake Anti-Gay Research Strategy A Stinging Blow

In attendance were scholars such as Mark Regnerus, a sociologist who sparked controversy after he published a 2012 journal article funded by religious conservatives arguing that children of same-sex parents fared worse than others—even though he never studied children of same-sex parents. Regnerus’ study wascondemned in a letter by 200 scholarly peers and his own university departmentissued a stern rebuke calling the study “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.” An internal audit found “serious flaws and distortions” and concluded the paper never should have been published.[...]​

The grooming of conservative experts appeared to be falling into place when Michigan called Regnerus and three other witnesses to describe research allegedly showing gay marriage and parenting harms kids. Regnerus testified that, based on his research, he believed “we aren’t anywhere near saying there's conclusive evidence” that children of gay parents fare as well as others, and that, “until we get more evidence, we should be skeptical” of any such claims. “The most prudent thing to do,” he concluded, “is wait and evaluate some of these changes over time before making any radical moves around marriage.”

But on cross-examination by the ACLU’s Leslie Cooper, Regnerus’ testimony quickly broke down. Cooper forced Regnerus to admit that he had sought to conceal the role of conservative funders and of his religious faith in influencing his research, both of which were later revealed with smoking gun evidence from his prior words. He acknowledged that he was “not a fan of same sex marriage” before he started his research and that his opposition to it was not primarily based on his research conclusions. And he had to concede that he had singled out gay couples in opposing their right to marry based on alleged family instability: Aware that African-Americans, the poor, step-families and divorced people are all at higher statistical risk of marital collapse and family instability, he nonetheless had no strong opinion on whether those folks should be banned from marrying—just gays, strongly suggesting his views are rooted in bias above all.[...]

Judge Friedman didn’t fall for any of it. “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

Oh, so he hid his funding? Big deal, has nothing to do with the facts of the study.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh by the way SeaBytch, allow me to point out another of your lies.

At NO point did I explicitly state that anyone's children were better off than anyone's. No I left that to you. I simply asked a question and posted a study.

I will also remind your dumb ass that I am CLEARLY on the record that I would yank kids out of straight homes where they are being neglected as well. Unlike you , my concern isn't homosexuality, it is the KIDS.


The fact of the matter is, I DON'T know what if any affect gay parents might have on kids, and nether do you

 

[Seawytch]

Right- you reject facts and appeal to 'what is obvious'.

Rather a typical answer from the position of bigotry.

So, I'll ask you the same question SeaBytch is too dishonest to answer. Do you consider studies to be vitally important when determining whether children should be in households with gay parents?

I think that studies should be considered on determining whether children should be in the households of any parents.

But not all studies are equal, and someone has to determine what the preponderance of evidence is.

And applying the same standards to all parenting- 'what is best for children'- rather than just 'can we find evidence against gay parents'

Oh, I agree. I just posted a pretty lengthy study that shows that on average children of gays (lesbians in particular) don't do very well. That certainly doesn't mean ALL children of lesbian parents are worse off than ALL children of biological parents. And I never implied that, but SeaBytch clearly says OUR children in the plural sense of all gays are no worse off than straight parents. I just posted a study which proves she is wrong. As a group, children of lesbians are worse off than children of straights.

No, you provided a study by a disgraced homophobe like yourself.

Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay 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 LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.
​

Michigan Courtroom Deals Fake Anti-Gay Research Strategy A Stinging Blow

In attendance were scholars such as Mark Regnerus, a sociologist who sparked controversy after he published a 2012 journal article funded by religious conservatives arguing that children of same-sex parents fared worse than others—even though he never studied children of same-sex parents. Regnerus’ study wascondemned in a letter by 200 scholarly peers and his own university departmentissued a stern rebuke calling the study “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.” An internal audit found “serious flaws and distortions” and concluded the paper never should have been published.[...]​

The grooming of conservative experts appeared to be falling into place when Michigan called Regnerus and three other witnesses to describe research allegedly showing gay marriage and parenting harms kids. Regnerus testified that, based on his research, he believed “we aren’t anywhere near saying there's conclusive evidence” that children of gay parents fare as well as others, and that, “until we get more evidence, we should be skeptical” of any such claims. “The most prudent thing to do,” he concluded, “is wait and evaluate some of these changes over time before making any radical moves around marriage.”

But on cross-examination by the ACLU’s Leslie Cooper, Regnerus’ testimony quickly broke down. Cooper forced Regnerus to admit that he had sought to conceal the role of conservative funders and of his religious faith in influencing his research, both of which were later revealed with smoking gun evidence from his prior words. He acknowledged that he was “not a fan of same sex marriage” before he started his research and that his opposition to it was not primarily based on his research conclusions. And he had to concede that he had singled out gay couples in opposing their right to marry based on alleged family instability: Aware that African-Americans, the poor, step-families and divorced people are all at higher statistical risk of marital collapse and family instability, he nonetheless had no strong opinion on whether those folks should be banned from marrying—just gays, strongly suggesting his views are rooted in bias above all.[...]

Judge Friedman didn’t fall for any of it. “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”​

Oh, so he hid his funding? Big deal, has nothing to do with the facts of the study.

Nope, that wasn't all, but a homophobic bigot wouldn't read anymore past that. A homophobic bigot wouldn't look at the 200 researchers that responded to the flaws and errors in his conclusions.

But go ahead and keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot...despite being willing to swallow the bullshit Regenerus study whole.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh by the way SeaBytch, allow me to point out another of your lies.

At NO point did I explicitly state that anyone's children were better off than anyone's. No I left that to you. I simply asked a question and posted a study.

I will also remind your dumb ass that I am CLEARLY on the record that I would yank kids out of straight homes where they are being neglected as well. Unlike you , my concern isn't homosexuality, it is the KIDS.


The fact of the matter is, I DON'T know what if any affect gay parents might have on kids, and nether do you

I do know...I know that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and that trying to use children to keep gays from marrying is ludicrous...and yet you seemed to jump on the bandwagon going so far as to post a debunked study by another bigot.

Our kids are fine.

 

[Howey]

I don't even watch Fox News you moron

And I don't fear, or hate gays.

I think 75% of gays are idiots, no different than the general population. It is your logical fallacy which states that because I think YOU are an idiot and scum that I think that about all gays. Completely untrue.

Oh, and you can post all the links you want idiot, how is an 11 year old suddenly able to consent to something as life altering as hormone blockers? He didn't consent. He can't consent. Moron.

Ya are, Blanche, ya are a homophobic bigot. Anyone that so liberally uses the F-word for gay man is a homophobic bigot.

Read the link Dumb as Fuck. What they are doing is what is recommended by medical professionals who deal with gender dysphoria. The child's treatment has nothing to do with her parents being gay other than they are, hopefully, better equipped to handle than someone, say, like you.

I don't use "the f word" which by the way , the f word is fuck, not faggot, to describe gay men.. Ask Howey if I've ever called him a faggot.

I use the term to degrade faggots of either gender who are stupid. No different than I have NEVER called Mad_Cabbie a n!gger, but certainly would call a stupid black person a n!gger in a heart beat. Yes, it's meant to degrade , so is you calling me dumber than dirt bear, want to give a logical explanation of the difference? You of course can't.

SeaBytch, you will NEVER be able to corner me in a debate, you are simply stupid. You admit that the government has always defined marriage, all the while screaming that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage. How stupid is that?

You use the term, that makes you a homophobic bigot. That gays make you feel icky and that you have an aversion to them makes you a homophobic bigot.

When did I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to define marriage?

Oh Seawytch...You are family in a way, so I hate to disagree. When did SmarterThanTheAverageBear say gays make him feel icky and so forth? (To be honest I know a few too who turn my stomach). I also know lesbians who are hateful bitches, but only a few.

Oh. Me, my husband and friends call each other "fags" occasionally. It's meant to dilute the effect of words used by real homophobes and bigots.

I know people don't like to face this reality, but it is a reality. You and your GAY friends calling each other F word for gay man is not the same as a bigot like DumbFuckBear using it. He does not use it in jest as you do, he uses it with complete animus.

And sorry, but by reading his posts, I can see nothing but loathing and animus from him regarding gays. That he doesn't wish to deny us the fundamental right of civil marriage does not make him less of a bigot. I agree with the SCOTUS that murderers on death row have a fundamental right to marry, I'm still bigoted towards them.

Sorry. I see that from Yurt and others but not SmarterThanTheAverageBear

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh by the way SeaBytch, allow me to point out another of your lies.

At NO point did I explicitly state that anyone's children were better off than anyone's. No I left that to you. I simply asked a question and posted a study.

I will also remind your dumb ass that I am CLEARLY on the record that I would yank kids out of straight homes where they are being neglected as well. Unlike you , my concern isn't homosexuality, it is the KIDS.


The fact of the matter is, I DON'T know what if any affect gay parents might have on kids, and nether do you

I do know...I know that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and that trying to use children to keep gays from marrying is ludicrous...and yet you seemed to jump on the bandwagon going so far as to post a debunked study by another bigot.

Our kids are fine.

You don't know. You know about YOUR kids. You know NOTHING about mine.

And of course, YOUR kids do not represent the children of gays as a whole anyway.

See, you are dishonest, and stupid.

Oh, and the study I posted certainly was not debunked. Here's the disagreement in a nut shell

Several experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother -- who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood -- is an unfair, flawed comparison.

Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News

So, even "the experts" don't deny that the statistics in the study are true, they just deny that actual lesbians were asked the questions LOL

You really should research before you open your big mouth

 

[Howey]

Yes, Howey I fear and loathe you so much that if you should find yourself in SW Missouri you give me a call and the steak dinner is on me (not a tube steak you silly queer) Hell, bring your man even , he can talk clothes with my wife while we watch the game.

I don't eat beef dear. And he'll be discussing his huge penis, cars, and big tits (we both appreciate big tits) while I discuss decorating and NFL football.

Strange couple of fags, we are.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

By the way SeaBytch, what I just posted brings up another couple of questions .

I'm assuming that at some point you were with a man, otherwise how did you have kids? Do you now self identify as a lesbian?

 

[Howey]

The most important factor of what? Marriage equality? No, because children are not a prerequisite for civil marriage.

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

View attachment 35006


Pretty legit I would think

You lose ten points. A. Never quote the FRC; B. That study is pure BULLSHIT.

Sorry. I call em as i see em.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, Howey I fear and loathe you so much that if you should find yourself in SW Missouri you give me a call and the steak dinner is on me (not a tube steak you silly queer) Hell, bring your man even , he can talk clothes with my wife while we watch the game.

I don't eat beef dear. And he'll be discussing his huge penis, cars, and big tits (we both appreciate big tits) while I discuss decorating and NFL football.

Strange couple of fags, we are.

Jesus Christ, I didn't mind the gay thing, but you don't eat beef? Fuck you faggot









oh, we do have a few other items on our menu , you know for the women. Come on down anyway.



Don't talk about big tits though, my wife will start hitting me up to get her a boob job again. 36Cs are plenty I tell her.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, I'm asking you do you believe studies are the most important thing to consider when deciding whether gay couples should be allowed to have children?

I don't care if gays "get married" , however, if studies show that children are being neglected in such relationships, that's a different matter, because children can't consent to being neglected.

Allowed to have children? Would you like to stop them? How you gonna stop 'em fascist?

That doesn't answer my question. DO you contend that studies are the most important thing when determing whether gay parents are bad for children? Yes or no?

Or do you simply not care about the welfare of children when compared to your concern for your gay agenda?

And call me a fascist if you wish, my chief concern is, and always will be, the children of the world, Indeed I would remove every child from every neglectful household in America and throw the worthless pieces of shit who were neglecting them right in jail.

No, the studies showing that our children are at no disadvantage to yours are not the "most important" thing, but they do counter the bigots and the homophobes like you.

Ah interesting so what do you have to say about THIS study

Family Research Council

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

By the way, here is the author of the study's CVT

View attachment 35006


Pretty legit I would think

You lose ten points. A. Never quote the FRC; B. That study is pure BULLSHIT.

Sorry. I call em as i see em.

I don't believe the study is bullshit.

I also don't believe it's enough to warrant taking kids out of homes.

I only posted it to counter SeaBytch's argument that ALL studies show that children of gays are doing great.