So gay!!!

[billyshelby]

A summary of expert testimony Micheal E Lamb provided in a 2008 Florida case to overturn a ban on gay adoption:

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/re-gill-summary-scientific-evidence

Testimony about the scientific research on the well-being of children raised by gay parents: Dr. Michael Lamb

The expert testimony showed that over 40 years of scientific research in the field of child development has established that the predictors of children’s healthy adjustment are: i) the quality of the child’s relationship with the parent(s) —a relationship characterized by warmth, closeness, and parental sensitivity and commitment promotes healthy adjustment; ii) the quality of the relationship between the parents (if there are two)—harmonious relationships support healthy adjustment of children while significant conflict impedes it; and iii) adequate resources. This is widely recognized among child development researchers and a topic about which there is consensus in the field.

The scientific research also shows that these same three factors correlate with children’s adjustment in all sorts of family forms. If the quality of the parent-child relationships is good, the relationship between the parents is harmonious (if there are two), and there are adequate resources, children develop equally well in a range of “non-traditional” family environments, e.g., divorced families, single parent families, families with employed mothers and stay at home fathers, and families in which children spend time in day care. This is widely accepted among child development researchers and a matter of consensus within the field.

Thus, before the commencement of scientific research studying children of gay parents, there was no basis to start with the assumption that being raised by gay parents would have adverse effects on children.

When researchers did study gay parents and their children, they consistently found that gay people do not differ from heterosexuals in terms of the quality of their parenting and that children raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted psychologically, socially and academically as children raised by heterosexual parents.

Numerous studies of gay parent families have been conducted by various well-respected developmental psychologists since the 1970s.

This body of research includes studies that compare children raised since birth in same-sex and married heterosexual couple families, studies of subjects drawn from representative samples, longitudinal studies following subjects over a period of time, and some studies of families with gay adoptive parents.

The findings were uniform; not a single one of these studies found an elevated rate of adjustment problems among children raised by gay parents.

That being raised by gay parents has no adverse impact on children’s healthy adjustment is a topic of consensus within all of the professional fields dedicated to children’s health and welfare—psychology, psychiatry, pediatrics, social work and child welfare. The major national professional associations in those fields, including the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League of America, have taken public positions against restrictions on placing children with gay parents.

 

[One Brow]

OK, Eric. I get the feeling you don't really care to discuss these matters in good faith. You simply want, without evidence, to deny any proposition you don't like or don't care to hear about. You simply call Meese a liar, and present your ignorance of studies which do exist as proof that they don't.

That said, here's an excerpt from the first website I came across:

...

So, the development of a child with two "mothers" would be just the same as one with a mother and father, eh? After all, it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

Well, Hopper, I use enough good faith that I don't present discussions about single parenting vs. double parenting, and pretend they address the notion of same-sex marriage. Nor did I say Meese was a liar. You complete and utter disregard for the truth in those two posts is clear.

 

[Hopper]

"Research into fatherhood claims that the impact of fathers may be a ‘slow-burn’ - less significant than mothers in the younger years – but holding great benefits for the child as it reaches adolescence and adulthood. Michael Lamb is one of the world’s foremost researchers on fatherhood and has now released the fourth edition of the book The Role of the Father in Child Development which brings together the world’s best investigators in the field."

Seems kinda funny that a guy who authors a book entitled "The Role of the Father in Child Development," which elucidates the different benefits parental gender confer in the development of children, could somehow be interpreted to be saying that "it is beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," don't it?

If that's the case, I wonder how anyone could claim that: "Research into fatherhood claims that the impact of fathers may be a ‘slow-burn’ - less significant than mothers in the younger years – but holding great benefits for the child as it reaches adolescence and adulthood."

 

[Hopper]

"...we'll doubtless hear plenty from each side about the research on same-sex parenting and its effects on kids. What's surprising is that both camps have converged lately on a very basic point: The existing science is methodologically flawed and ideologically skewed.

You wouldn't guess from the current "expert" position on homosexual child-rearing that the data are in any doubt...But behind the scenes, skeptics have emerged—and from an unexpected quarter. It's hardly startling to find conservative family-values crusaders and opponents of gay marriage balking at the verdict and challenging the validity of several decades' worth of data....What's jarring is to hear champions of family diversity and gay marriage chiming in. Who would have predicted this camp would come up with the most incisive critique of the claim that research has proved there are no differences between kids raised by gay and straight parents?

Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists...Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny."

Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies...As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science.

All the evidence—as both sides acknowledge—is seriously flawed and doesn't begin to supply anything like solid support for either the hopes of gay family harmony or the fears about scarred children and skewed parenting. And until gay couples are allowed to marry, there can't possibly be decent studies of whether the honorable estate confers the same benefits on kids whose parents are the same sex as it does on those who have a mom and a dad. In the meantime, it's quite clear that the absence of good science won't—and shouldn't—settle a fraught debate."

https://www.slate.com/id/2097048

The author here makes it clear that she is in favor of same-sex parenting.

 

[Hopper]

"The pervasiveness of social prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against lesbians and gay men exerts a powerful policing affect on the basic terms of psychological research and public discourse on the significance of parental sexual orientation," Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz write in a report in the American Sociological Review. It's not that [researchers] are being dishonest," Stacey said in an interview. "But what we say is there are intriguing, provocative differences found in these studies."

Researchers, they say, ought to be honest about their personal convictions and let the political chips fall where they may. Stacey and Biblarz admit in their own review that they believe in a "diverse" and "pluralistic" family structure that does not discriminate against same-sex households. Any differences found in research on children do not necessarily constitute "deficits," they say, and ought to be acknowledged and studied more thoroughly.

Stacey and Biblarz claim that "it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."

In reexamining the data from earlier studies, Stacey and Biblarz in fact found significant differences between gay-parented and hetero-parented children. Among them:

A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

I don't have access to this whole article, and I'm not even trying to argue for one side of the other. The points I think are worth considering are (1) the claim that prior studies have been methodologically flawed and "result-driven" by scientists seeking to prove a given outcome, and (2) the claim that it is now generally acknowledged that no (reliable) definitive evidence for either view has emerged. This alone would certainly undermine the judge's claim, even if he is right.

Meese's claim could also be supported by this 80 page report, by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine. It says there that "the State of Florida used this kind of scientific research provided by Dr. Rekers in defending the law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children." This "study" appears to cite close to 300 scholarly articles, eh, Eric? I wonder if you have read them all. I'm assuming that you've never seen this particular research paper, so if you're interested ya can look here:

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

 

[TroutBum]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, eh Taint? Could you please do like 3 or 5 posts in a row so I can understand you better?

Thanks.

 

[NAOS]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, eh Taint? Could you please do like 3 or 5 posts in a row so I can understand you better?

Thanks.

translation: rEadIn' iS haRd.

 

[Marty McFly]

I have to say, aintnuthin is probably the best troll on the entire internet. Anybody who actually takes time to argue with him really needs to take a step back and realize you're being trolled HARD.

 

[Hopper]

"Tuesday, January 11, 2005: The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would not hear a challenge to Florida's unique-in-the-nation ban on adoptions by gays...Without comment or published dissent, the court declined a petition from four gay foster parents and their foster children, who argued that the Florida law, adopted in 1977, violates constitutional rights the Supreme Court recognized when it struck down Texas's ban on same-sex sodomy in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas. The court's action leaves in place a 2 to 1 ruling last year by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which upheld the Florida law as a rational expression of the state legislature's view that households headed by married heterosexuals are best for children.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62672-2005Jan10.html


In the course of upholding this ban the federal appellate court said: "In considering appellants' argument, we must ask not whether the latest in social science research and professional opinion support the decision of the Florida legislature, but whether that evidence is so well established and so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational for the Florida legislature to believe that the interests of its children are best served by not permitting homosexual adoption. Also, we must credit any conceivable rational reason that the legislature might have for choosing not to alter its statutory scheme in response to this recent social science research. We must assume, for example, that the legislature might be aware of the critiques of the studies cited by appellants -- critiques that have highlighted significant flaws in the studies' methodologies and conclusions, such as the use of small, self-selected samples; reliance on self-report instruments; politically driven hypotheses; and the use of unrepresentative study populations consisting of disproportionately affluent, educated parents.

https://www.danpinello.com/Lofton.htm

Why does this federal appellate court seem to think it MUST consider (or at least assume the state considered) "critiques" of the studies presented by the plaintiffs, I wonder? The gay judge in San Francisco didn't seem to think he had to. For him, like you, Eric, they didn't seem to even exist.

Kicky, the bigshot lawyer, seemed to be VERY IMPRESSED that the Judge Vaughn Walker, found, as a matter of fact, that there is no conceivable rational reason for upholding prop 8. I have a feeling ths Appellate Courts, might also be very IMPRESSED (or maybe SHOCKED is a better word). Doesn't seem like it would take much to overturn Judge Walker on legal grounds, if they care to. Unfortunately for Kicky, the fact that an opinion may ignore the law, and ignore all contrary evidence, only makes it easier, not harder, to overrule, contrary to what he seemed to assume.

 

[Hopper]

If you choose to actively look for evidence of arguments that you doubt are accurate, fine.

I do, Eric. You obviously don't. Any "doubt" you choose to harbor seems to settle the issue for you.

However, I don't see you making a lot of posts that include the results of such research.

I got suckered into making a few such posts, eh, Eric? Satisfied, or do you want, like, mebbe one million more?

 

[TroutBum]

translation: rEadIn' iS haRd.

Another vicious burn. How WILL I go on?

 

[NAOS]

Another vicious burn. How WILL I go on?

I'd suggest using one of these. I can't believe your floozie mother didn't tell you about them.

 

[Gameface]

I'd suggest using one of these. I can't believe your floozie mother didn't tell you about them.

I love those things. it just sucks when the wind is blowing a little bit and the parachute carries it into old man Thompson's yard.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

One Brow gave up on Hopper or was that a different thread?

 

[moevillini]

aint, you sure love to constantly criticize sirkickyass as being a pompous "know-it-all" - but you win the prize in that category - well, maybe you don't "know it all" but you sure as hell think you do, and you are far more pompous about it too.

you've consistently ranted about "substance" in this and other threads, but you have none yourself. you don't need to grow a pair, you need to cut yours off.

 

[sirkickyass]

aint, you sure love to constantly criticize sirkickyass as being a pompous "know-it-all"

I haven't posted in this thread in a week. Is he really still complaining?

 

[Hopper]

aint, you sure love to constantly criticize sirkickyass as being a pompous "know-it-all" - but you win the prize in that category - well, maybe you don't "know it all" but you sure as hell think you do, and you are far more pompous about it too.

you've consistently ranted about "substance" in this and other threads, but you have none yourself. you don't need to grow a pair, you need to cut yours off.

Good work, Mo! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. I can see you too treasure the idea of legalizing gay marriage and highly resent the revelation of any reasons it might not be immediately achieved. It's quite easy for me, or anyone else around this here joint, to make "enemies." All ya gotta do is refrain from sayin "yeah, you're absolutely right" after every post they make. Do you care to provide any substance for your unsupported statement that none of my posts have any substance, I wonder? I spect not, but feel free, ya know?

 

[moevillini]

Good work, Aint Hoppin! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. Now we can each take our balls and go home.

 

[Hopper]

I find the "editorial note" which precedes the research paper presented by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, to be kinda intristin, ya know? Sounds like the state's bottom-feeder in Arkansas, Kathy Hall, might have a few thangs in common with good ole Arnie Schwartzenegger, eh?:

"Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regardingthe higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

Then, after seeing Dr. Rekers' review (included in this paper) of the evidence of higher rates of
psychiatric disorders in practicing homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, attorney Kathy Hall made last minute motions to exclude that scientific evidence from consideration in the case just prior to Dr. Rekers' courtroom testimony. Ultimately, Kathy Hall did not allow Professor Rekers to present even 20% of the evidence in this paper that he provided her prior to his scheduled testimony in court. [A]s a result, Kathy Hall lost the case for the State of Arkansas."

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

Why would a bottom-feeder for the state make motions to exclude 80% of the remaining evidence (remaining after already excluding a huge portion of evidence, that is) that might help the state win it's case, I wonder? If any bottom-feeder felt such a motion was called for, you would think the bottom-feeder for other side would be the one to make it. Very "curious," indeed.

 

[One Brow]

Seems kinda funny that a guy who authors a book entitled "The Role of the Father in Child Development," which elucidates the different benefits parental gender confer in the development of children, could somehow be interpreted to be saying that "it is beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," don't it?

Seems kinda funny you are still ignorantly portraying this material as being about gender specifically, as opposed to the roles they play.

Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists...Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny."

Now, if you want to use this to say Judge Walker over-reached in a particular quote, that's one thing. However, this certainly does not support Meese's claim of extensive evidence existing, it flatly refutes it. I'm certainly in favor of better-designed studies.

Meese's claim could also be supported by this 80 page report, by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., ...

https://www.catholiceducation.org/art...lParenting.pdf

Ultimately, Kathy Hall did not allow Professor Rekers to present even 20% of the evidence in this paper that he provided her prior to his scheduled testimony in court

So, less than 20% of that paper was considered reliable enough to be presented in a court of lay by the attorney who was opposing gay adoption? That doesn't even cover what the experts from the other side made of the reamining 20%. I'm going going to try to sift 80% garbage from 20% possibly garbage, possibly not garbage.

Why does this federal appellate court seem to think it MUST consider (or at least assume the state considered) "critiques" of the studies presented by the plaintiffs, I wonder? The gay judge in San Francisco didn't seem to think he had to. For him, like you, Eric, they didn't seem to even exist.

I'm still waiting for proof they do exist. Meanwhile, the federal court assuming the state courts/legislature undertook an action is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action.

I do, Eric. You obviously don't. Any "doubt" you choose to harbor seems to settle the issue for you.

Considering the credibility you have invested in the Discovery Institute, NARTH, global-warming denialists, and relativity cranks that a little more research would have shown you to be unreliable, you seem to be either deluded or just lying about your checking out opposing views. Just now you are quoting Rekers (founding member of NARTH) on homosexuality. Did you really think you would see an unbiased, scientific summary from that?

I got suckered into making a few such posts, eh, Eric? Satisfied, or do you want, like, mebbe one million more?

One more, with actual evidence supporting Meese's statement that is not a needle in a haystack, will be fine. Maybe you should avoid sources like NARTH in your "reasearch".