Have Gays never been disenfranchised?

[McCulloch]

To quote Dr. ML King's daughter, no one is enslaving homosexuals...or making them sit in the back of the bus. Gays have never been disenfranchised as a group.

Have Gays never been disenfranchised?

[East of Eden]

1. This has nothing to do with gay rights.
2. Even if we were arguing against single parenting, I find your line of accusation that being on the dole is bad. Tell that to a single mother who can't pay for food.

What would you prefer? That she starve to death until she can find a husband?

Your line of reasoning is so arrogant.

Now you have a problem with society trying to help less fortunate people?

Temporarily, yes. It is supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.

According to your God?

According to whom?


Why can't society look after people as long as society wants?

Because it all collapses when you get more people riding in the wagon than pulling the wagon. We already have the immoral situation of generational theft whereby $16 trillion in debt is passed on to our grandchildren. I suppose that's OK as long as it gets liberal politicians re-elected right?

Who said there are more people on the system? There was nothing in your "data" that suggested children of gay parents are going to increase the welfare roles... as if it's bad for people in hard times to get help!

What you seem to ignore is that during down economies, people have trouble getting work. Welfare may be distasteful to you, but the alternative is appalling. That is, if you don't like rioting and starvation. Maybe that's what you like? Some kind of social apocalypse?

Plus, aren't you disagreeing with the basic idea Jesus taught that we should care for people first and worry about where the money comes later?

Cite? He said WE have a personal responsibility to care for the poor, when you are taxed that isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything. I'll compare my giving to anyone on this forum.

Suddenly your religious beliefs vacate when you talk social policy!

Not really, but I thought you don't care what the Bible says?

What, no quote from the Bible?

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." II Thes. 3:10

So, you are offering secular quotes as if one of our Founding Fathers makes Universal and Objective Laws?

Uh, no, but I thought you didn't believe in Universal and Objective laws?

You certainly have not shown anything with that study, except that Christians can lie for their cause.

Sorry, the lie is in those who dismiss and slander a valid study because they don't like the results.

Even more evidence has now come to light that proves that Mark Regnerus' flawed study of children raised by gay parents funded by the anti-LGBT Witherspoon Institute was intended to further their agenda, rather than shed any actual light on the topic.

Since it was published last year, the study has garnered huge amounts of criticism and controversy – and was called "bullshit" by an editorial board member at the very journal that published it. The study claimed to find that households with same-sex parents were less supportive and nurturing than households with opposite-sex parents. On top of having been funded by the Witherspoon Institute, utilizing flawed research methods and undergoing faulty review processes, The American Independent has now uncovered a 'media guide' that was provided to Regnerus, which tells him exactly how to discuss his study, to further a conservative anti-gay agenda.

Among other things, the guide instructed Regnerus to say, "Every academic study is paid for by someone. Witherspoon approached us with a desire to independently examine the differences between young adults raised in a same-sex household and those raised in traditional, intact families... Witherspoon has played no role in the outcome of this study."

The message itself subtly highlights one of the biggest flaws in the study by claiming that Regnerus' respondents were, "young adults raised in a same-sex households and those raised in traditional, intact families."

In fact, the study actually compared homes with committed opposite-sex parents to broken homes headed by parents who had, at some point, had a same-sex relationship. These were hardly "same-sex households." Only two of the respondents were raised by a lesbian couple from birth.

Baloney. This study is far more thorough than any previous one on the subject.

"In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.

The New Family Structures Study--Restoring the "Gold Standard"

This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field.

Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents--making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of "self-presentation bias"--the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.

Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.

The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups:

Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale--for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
Finally, "event-count" outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences--e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested--and the number of sex partners.

Nearly 15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures."

[Ooberman]

When were you going to admit your post was copied and pasted from an anti-gay website?

[micatala]

Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple?

I think they should be placed with a mom and dad, not two of each or a single parent.

This is only a partial answer. "Placing" suggests the child is already in government custody. Do you think all children should be placed in government custody?

Should a child who is currently living with a single parent be taken away and given to a heterosexual couple?

Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?

No, I am in favor of not placing them in such sub-optimal situations to begin with.

You really are going to great lengths to avoid answering the question, aren't you?

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "placing."

My question is not limited to adoption or divorce, here. If divorce had taken place, custody can be awarded in one of several ways. However, the child is most often placed with one of the two people divorcing. We do not say, at least without a lot of other issues being involved, that the child will be taken away from both parents and given to another couple, or force one of the parents to find a partner before awarding custody.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "placing."

Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?

Already answered.

No, you did not answer the question, and if you assert you did, you are playing with words and avoiding the question.


If a couple divorces and the child is living with one parent, should the state compel the single parent to give up the child to be "placed" with a heterosexual couple? Yes or no.

I will also note as a sideline that children who report more than one race are nearly twice as likely to get involved with illegal drugs as children reporting Caucasian only.

Should we disallow interracial marriage on these grounds?

I don't care marries who, I don't think kids should be placed in homes with illegal drug activity happening, do you?

Well, then clarify what you mean by placing. Most children are not "placed" with their parents by the government. If you think they all should be, then please state that up front.

I would agree that we should not allow children to be adopted by persons who can be shown to be engaging in illegal activity.

Your non-answer to these questions speaks volumes concerning the extreme inconsistency in your argument.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but I don't have any non-answers, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question of which parent don't kids need, a mom or dad?

Further evasion.


For the record, and to clarify the answer I already gave, I think the data support the kids do best, all else being equal, living with their biological parents. However, I accept single-parenting, adoption, foster parenting, step-parenting, etc. all exist and we should accept those situations, while still encouraging couples to stay together.


Again, I'll ask for a direct answer to the questions, as clarified above. No answer that addresses the substance of the questions has been provided in what you have said so far.

If you offer "children needing a mom and a dad" as a justification for not allowing gay marriage, or, as in this case, justifying a judges decision to intrude on the parenting of a same-sex couple and then you don't apply that same standard to any other individuals or groups, you are making a hypocritical argument. You are being inconsistent, and your argument has the effect of producing a position that reflects an anti-gay bias.

How is anyone to reach any other conclusion about your position and your argument for that position?

You support this judges action.

Cite or retract. I support the judge's sentiment that kids need a mom and dad.

Well, well. OK. If you are retracting the implication you made earlier, or clarifying, that is fine.

So, am I to infer that you do NOT support this judges decision? Do you think the judge made the wrong decision? Do you think the decision should be reversed?

I'll ask again, would it be OK for a judge to make a similar decision with respect to single parents? Would it be OK for a judge to take a child away from a single parent and give it to a heterosexual couple?

Already answered.

You have not unambiguously answered the questions. You are still engaging in equivocation.

As a related question, would it be OK for a judge to tell a single women's boyfriend he has to move out since she has a child from a previous relationship? Yes or no.

I'm not in favor of any child being taken out of a home short of illegal activity happening, but will note about this situation that a 2011 federal study of child abuse found that the riskiest home situation for children was living with one parent and an unmarried partner: 57.2 per 1,000 were maltreated. That’s more than eight times the risk than if they were living with both biological parents (6.8 per 1,000) and more than double the risk of living in a single-parent household (28.4 per 1,000).

Very good. I will count this as an unambiguous answer to this question. Am I correct in inferring, then, that you disagree with this particular judge's decision and that it should be reversed?


I also accept it is reasonable, and you have some data here, that supports increased risk to children in this situation. In fact, I think you can find data supporting a similar conclusion for step-parenting situations, even if the rate is not as high.

According to your logic it would be discriminatory to hestiate to place a child in this situation.

It would be discriminatory if we do not make similar decisions in other similar situations. That is all I am saying. If this judge does not routinely tells a single-parent they cannot live with a partner as part of a divorce decision, but is willing to stand by this decision, he is being biased and making an indefensible decision.

Each individual should receive a decision based on their particular case, not on the basis of a class-based judgment, especially when the rationale for that judgment are being applied in a blatantly unequal fashion.

[East of Eden]

When were you going to admit your post was copied and pasted from an anti-gay website?

I reject your perjorative name-calling, without which you wouldn't have much to say here. By your standards Jesus was anti-gay. When are you going to deal with the study findings?

[Ooberman]

Cite? He said WE have a personal responsibility to care for the poor, when you are taxed that isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything.

The "We" you refer to... do you mean, we, the people, or do you only mean Hellenized Jews listening to Jesus at the time?

You are right Jesus never advocated for the subjects under Roman jurisdiction... sad. He could have ended slavery with all his super powers.

[Ooberman]

When were you going to admit your post was copied and pasted from an anti-gay website?

I reject your perjorative name-calling, without which you wouldn't have much to say here. By your standards Jesus was anti-gay. When are you going to deal with the study findings?

Yes, Jesus was a homophobe if he is going to come back and kill them all. However, I personally beleive Jesus was gay.


Either way, your study is horribly flawed:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bey ... -critiques

It only had 2 families that had gay parents the whole time.

Its a horrible study designed to hate and hurt.

[East of Eden]

When were you going to admit your post was copied and pasted from an anti-gay website?

I reject your perjorative name-calling, without which you wouldn't have much to say here. By your standards Jesus was anti-gay. When are you going to deal with the study findings?

Yes, Jesus was a homophobe if he is going to come back and kill them all. However, I personally beleive Jesus was gay.


Either way, your study is horribly flawed:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bey ... -critiques

It only had 2 families that had gay parents the whole time.

Its a horrible study designed to hate and hurt.

You can't handle the truth.

[East of Eden]

Cite? He said WE have a personal responsibility to care for the poor, when you are taxed that isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything.

The "We" you refer to... do you mean, we, the people, or do you only mean Hellenized Jews listening to Jesus at the time?

The we refers to Jesus followers.

You are right Jesus never advocated for the subjects under Roman jurisdiction... sad. He could have ended slavery with all his super powers.

Why would they have listened to him? His Kingdom was not of this world. The salvation of the lost was a far greater mission, I'd rather be a slave on my way to heavan than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

[Ooberman]

Cite? He said WE have a personal responsibility to care for the poor, when you are taxed that isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything.

The "We" you refer to... do you mean, we, the people, or do you only mean Hellenized Jews listening to Jesus at the time?

The we refers to Jesus followers.

You are right Jesus never advocated for the subjects under Roman jurisdiction... sad. He could have ended slavery with all his super powers.

Why would they have listened to him? His Kingdom was not of this world. The salvation of the lost was a far greater mission, I'd rather be a slave on my way to heavan than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

Your God is so impotent that Caesar himself could challenge him?

Why wouldn't we believe Caesar controlled God in the afterlife, too?

The upside down world of the theist!

God doesn't do anything here... it's all saved for some big show afterwards!

So, the larger point is you are admitting this only applies to those Christians that believe it to be true.

A society has a larger responsibility than followers of God.

They have to actually do something with the facts, not live in a pretend land in which praying works and angels dance on pins.

[East of Eden]

Cite? He said WE have a personal responsibility to care for the poor, when you are taxed that isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything.

The "We" you refer to... do you mean, we, the people, or do you only mean Hellenized Jews listening to Jesus at the time?

The we refers to Jesus followers.

You are right Jesus never advocated for the subjects under Roman jurisdiction... sad. He could have ended slavery with all his super powers.

Why would they have listened to him? His Kingdom was not of this world. The salvation of the lost was a far greater mission, I'd rather be a slave on my way to heavan than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

Your God is so impotent that Caesar himself could challenge him?

Why wouldn't we believe Caesar controlled God in the afterlife, too?

The upside down world of the theist!

God doesn't do anything here... it's all saved for some big show afterwards!

So, the larger point is you are admitting this only applies to those Christians that believe it to be true.

A society has a larger responsibility than followers of God.

They have to actually do something with the facts, not live in a pretend land in which praying works and angels dance on pins.

It must really grind you to live in a majority Christian country that really does think prayer works, even Congress.

Always amusing when those who disbelieve in a personal God hate Him in a personal way.