Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Amicus American College of Pediatricians – not to be confused with amicus herein, the American Academy of Pediatrics – seriously mischaracterizes a recent study (“the Regnerus study”) as having compared children of married heterosexual
    parents with those “raised by same-sex couples.” Amicus Brief at 6.38 The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc. There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.”39 Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent
    38 Citing M. Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 752 (2012).
    39 Id. at 756 (emphasis in original).
    -22-
    Case: 12-15388 07/10/2012 ID: 8243116 DktEntry: 94 Page: 34 of 40
    (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”40 Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples – as Regnerus himself acknowledges41 – and thus it is gravely misleading to say, as the American College of Pediatricians does (p. 6), that the study involved 175 participants who “were raised by two women and 73 by two men.”
    Accordingly, the conclusions by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect a consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.42

    You can keep shouting, Nova, but all of this ground has been covered in my previous posts. Regnerus admits that his study found very few long term committed gay couples who raised children and were still together. That's what was in the random sample data. You can foam at the mouth about Regnerus because it's easier than examining WHY the independent company (with no axe to grind) did not find these chimerical long-term committed gay couples who raised children from young ages and are still together. It's because there are damned few of them--not enough for any statistical significance. THAT says something.

    Sure, if in 20 years, researchers go back and find lots of stable gay families who stayed together and raised children, then there might be enough for statistical significance. But for now, they, like the unicorn, don't exist at any level of significance. Now you can ignore the reality of the random sample and cling to previous studies which used cherry-picked cases and interviews with minor children who, of course, have an incentive to say nice things to strangers about their families. But, the reality is that when someone actually did a true random sample and of adult children (not little kids who wanted to please their parents), the sunshine and flowers disappeared.

    You want to smear Regnerus, that's ok. Just admit that it's smearing and nothing scientific. You can't get away from the fact that Regnerus' sample was the FIRST random sample done on this issue and it looked at real world adult children and their issues. It did not limit itself to the cool white friends of the researchers who lived in the well-to-do gay enclave downtown. The adult children in this study included a real cross section of Americans raised in households with same sex relationships. For that alone it deserves respect.

    And if you look at the other studies Regnerus mentions, it becomes clear that instability may be inherent in same sex relationships with or without marriage and with or without children. The Scandinavian studies are particularly interesting in that regard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    THAT says something. .
    No, it doesn't say anything. Your desperation is pathetic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, it doesn't say anything. Your desperation is pathetic.
    Smearing, inaccurate comments do not change the science, nor the fact that stable gay families in the real world are rare. You can't argue with a random sample. You might not like the categories the researcher made, but it's clear that the raw data (before the researcher analyzed it) included almost no stable gay couples raising children on the long term. Yes, that does say something. When something cannot be found in the raw data of a random sample, the lack itself is interesting, both scientifically and socially.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    That's a circular argument. We're in court because gay couples have been getting married but governments have been treating those marriages differently. It's rather like Scalia's attempt at being clever in which he demands to know when such discrimination became unconstitutional. The fact that a subject group has been discriminated against doesn't mean it was Constitutional, it only means it was done and tolerated until it wasn't.
    No, Scalia was basically asking when the traditional definition of marriage suddenly became discriminatory. It's a question that you have as yet to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Please offer something other than stupidity. Gay couples getting married isn't "taking the nation" in some direction other than the realization of the Constitution.
    Then perhaps you can cite the clause in the Constitution that allows gays to define marriage as they see fit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    In case you haven't been paying attention, I don't have a lot of respect for people like Scalia. I consider him a little too recent and his associations too foreign to be trusted. But I recognize that the Constitution makes no such distinction on the former and society is too willing to tolerate the latter for anything to be done about it.

    The Justices of the Supreme Court aren't required to change their opinion, if any, of gay couples marrying or gay people in general. They are under oath to put any prejudices aside and rule objectively and in accordance with the Constitution. What people like you can't stand is that the COnstitution couldn't be more unlike the Bible. You have bought into the BS that the Constitution is based in the Bible when clearly it is not. Ceremonial deism in documents doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers were snake handlers talking in tongues.
    Your lack of respect for Scalia has been noted. It is an ad hominem attack, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Again, feel free to explain how the Constitution mandates that gay marriage must be recognized by government at all levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    IN response to your concern, my understanding is that it's not much of an issue in coastal suburbia. Acceptance of gay people, while not infallibly variable with education and economic achievement, does tend to rise with both.
    As does tolerance for all manner of social pathologies. Coastal elites tolerate high crime, high rates of illegal immigration, confiscatory taxes and dysfunctional government. The tendency of people who have been educated beyond their intelligence to embrace toxic ideas doesn't make the notions that they accept correct, it just demonstrates that there are some ideas that only an intellectual will fall for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, it doesn't say anything. Your desperation is pathetic.
    Funny, but it looks to me like she's made a valid point that you cannot respond to.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I'll assume that is your way of saying I am incorrect. Any particular justification for your objection?
    If you're saying that people become smarter and richer when they accept gay people then yes, that is hilarious.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,306
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Question, how did a thread about black children being born out of wedlock become a thread about gay marriage? Oh, I forgot. When it comes to nova, it's all about the gays.
    After reading the first four pages I have came to the conclusion that 100% of white children are born white.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,306
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    If you're saying that people become smarter and richer when they accept gay people then yes, that is hilarious.

    No more lottery tickets for me........GO GAY MARRIAGE!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    If you're saying that people become smarter and richer when they accept gay people then yes, that is hilarious.
    No, it's the other way around. Smarter and richer people tend to be more accepting of gay people. How could you have read that otherwise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, it's the other way around. Smarter and richer people tend to be more accepting of gay people. How could you have read that otherwise?
    I know what you meant. I don't believe it in either scenario.

    I was originally going to ask...are you saying that's why black people are poor...but I didn't feel like going there.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,306
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    I know what you meant. I don't believe it in either scenario.

    I was originally going to ask...are you saying that's why black people are poor...but I didn't feel like going there.
    That's racist. lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •