AL gay couple accused of sexual abuse of child

[bodecea]

Er..you guys, the STUDIES aren't from the FRC.

This is the problem when uneducated morons try to discuss the issues of the day. You just don't understand the ins and outs of sourcing. The FRC SUMMARIZED the one study..but I linked the STUDIES THEMSELVES, and they are from #1, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin...and #2, Louisiana State University.

if the left does not have the arguments, they LIE.

they consider southern poverty law center BLOG to be a reliable "study center" and reliable UNIVERSITY studies if they come against their agenda - to be blog studies.

BTW, the interesting question from all of the studies before and now was and is - why sexual predators are predominantly MALES?

it does not matter f they are androphilic predators or gynephilic predators - but predators are 99.99% males always.

as far as I know nobody ever addressed the issue.

I have at times....it usually gets ignored.

 

[koshergrl]

She has a half assed agenda. Mostly she's just a moron. She "gets" about 1/3 of what passes in front of her. I think Jake's more agenda driven than she is, but there's no doubt that both of them are seriously impaired.

 

[Vox]

Er..you guys, the STUDIES aren't from the FRC.

This is the problem when uneducated morons try to discuss the issues of the day. You just don't understand the ins and outs of sourcing. The FRC SUMMARIZED the one study..but I linked the STUDIES THEMSELVES, and they are from #1, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin...and #2, Louisiana State University.

if the left does not have the arguments, they LIE.

they consider southern poverty law center BLOG to be a reliable "study center" and reliable UNIVERSITY studies if they come against their agenda - to be blog studies.

BTW, the interesting question from all of the studies before and now was and is - why sexual predators are predominantly MALES?

it does not matter f they are androphilic predators or gynephilic predators - ut predators are 99.99% males always.

as far as I know nobody ever addressed the issue.

I have at times....it usually gets ignored.

I meant from the scientific point of view.
it is a common knowledge and therefore I assume ( this is just speculation) that the reason has to be either connected to the Y chromosome or the balance of specific hormones ( which is also genetically related)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How dar the OP notice the level of depravity of these people! To notice that homosexual parents have a really bad record is homophobic...just as it's racist to comment on the terrible state of black families and the criminality of the inner cities...and it's bigoted to associate Islam with terrorism.

The noive!

Careful now, your hypocrisy is showing. You claim to be religious yet:

15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.
- Leviticus 19

Can you say with certainty in a court of law having sworn to G-d to speak only the truth that homosexual parents have a bad record across the board? Think before you answer, you may be held to account one day.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not commiting an injustice in judgment. What progressives don't understand is that it is right and good to protect the vulnerable.

I seriously doubt that God is going to get all het up over the fact that I have spoken out against abortion and homosexual adoptions, given the risks posed to children by both of those establishments.

And yes, I would say with certainty that homosexual parents have a truly horrendous record, across the board...as the real studies show.

 

[bodecea]

How dar the OP notice the level of depravity of these people! To notice that homosexual parents have a really bad record is homophobic...just as it's racist to comment on the terrible state of black families and the criminality of the inner cities...and it's bigoted to associate Islam with terrorism.

The noive!

It's simply a lie...and to repeat that lie for your own purposes is what is homophobic.


But...I cannot help but notice how messed up the kids are of ultra-religious parents. A personal anecdote, I know....I I have yet to see children (young or adult) of ultra-religious parents who are not messed up.

 

[koshergrl]

Children with homosexual parents:
Are 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.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

 

[Asclepias]

Children with homosexual parents:
Are 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.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

At this point its like debating a porcupine. You are too slow and stupid to grasp what you are being told but you want to continue to endanger people with your reasoning skills.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Children with homosexual parents:
Are 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.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

I clicked this link and you have to pay to see the information. The page that was available for my viewing did not indicate what you are claiming.

Peter Sprigg by the way, has a very specific vested interest in what his "research" indicates.

Family Research Council

Recent Activity of Peter Sprigg

Homosexual and Transgender Employment Bill Threatens Religious Liberty
Why Science Doesn't Support Orientation-Change Bans
Memo to Lackland Air Force Base: No 'Air Force Policy' Requires Support for Homosexual 'Marriage'
'Only a partial victory for gay marriage'
'Interim Report' on Australian Study of Homosexual Parents Adds Little to Debate
Slippery slope to accepting atheist Boy Scouts

Wow! Seems the man who conducted this "study" has a very unfavourable opinion of homosexuals.

Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again)

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Family Research Council should be considered an anti-gay hate group because it passes along and repeats propaganda and falsehoods that have been refuted by legitimate science.

Now the Family Research Council claims that they are being attacked for espousing "mere" Christian opposition to homosexuality and marriage equality.

It seems to me that if the organization wants to continue that line, then someone needs to put a kibosh on the work of FRC member Peter Sprigg.

Sprigg, who has said that gays and lesbians should be deported and that "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized, is also known for his "reports" and "studies" about the supposed dangers of homosexuality.

However on more than one occasion, it has been pointed out that Sprigg distorts legitimate work and relies on out-and-out lies to further his theories.

In two reports he authored - The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality and Getting it Straight - it has been pointed out that (amongst other things) that Sprigg distorted credible research to make his point. It's obvious to Sprigg that complaints by doctors and researchers as to how their work is being distorted is a minor thing that should be ignored.

Specifically in Top Ten Myths, Sprigg cites legitimate research in order to demonize lgbts, but makes it a point to omit the part of said research which refutes his general argument about homosexuality being a "dangerous lifestyle."


http://holybulliesandheadlessmonste...rigg-proves-family-research.html#.UrINEKERhf8


I'm sorry, but when someone conducts a study who has a conflict of interest with the possible outcome, it gives me great pause as to how the study was conducted in the first place.

 

[Asclepias]

if the left does not have the arguments, they LIE.

they consider southern poverty law center BLOG to be a reliable "study center" and reliable UNIVERSITY studies if they come against their agenda - to be blog studies.

BTW, the interesting question from all of the studies before and now was and is - why sexual predators are predominantly MALES?

it does not matter f they are androphilic predators or gynephilic predators - ut predators are 99.99% males always.

as far as I know nobody ever addressed the issue.

I have at times....it usually gets ignored.

I meant from the scientific point of view.
it is a common knowledge and therefore I assume ( this is just speculation) that the reason has to be either connected to the Y chromosome or the balance of specific hormones ( which is also genetically related)

We need to start putting down all males. The correlation is obvious. That would be the most humane and moral thing to do right? Wait.....I'm a male.

 

[cokolado]

I don't thin that homosexuality is bad, the worse are pedophiles

 

[koshergrl]

Children with homosexual parents:
Are 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.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

I clicked this link and you have to pay to see the information. The page that was available for my viewing did not indicate what you are claiming.

Peter Sprigg by the way, has a very specific vested interest in what his "research" indicates.

Family Research Council

Recent Activity of Peter Sprigg

Homosexual and Transgender Employment Bill Threatens Religious Liberty
Why Science Doesn't Support Orientation-Change Bans
Memo to Lackland Air Force Base: No 'Air Force Policy' Requires Support for Homosexual 'Marriage'
'Only a partial victory for gay marriage'
'Interim Report' on Australian Study of Homosexual Parents Adds Little to Debate
Slippery slope to accepting atheist Boy Scouts

Wow! Seems the man who conducted this "study" has a very unfavourable opinion of homosexuals.

Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again)

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Family Research Council should be considered an anti-gay hate group because it passes along and repeats propaganda and falsehoods that have been refuted by legitimate science.

Now the Family Research Council claims that they are being attacked for espousing "mere" Christian opposition to homosexuality and marriage equality.

It seems to me that if the organization wants to continue that line, then someone needs to put a kibosh on the work of FRC member Peter Sprigg.

Sprigg, who has said that gays and lesbians should be deported and that "homosexual behavior" should be criminalized, is also known for his "reports" and "studies" about the supposed dangers of homosexuality.

However on more than one occasion, it has been pointed out that Sprigg distorts legitimate work and relies on out-and-out lies to further his theories.

In two reports he authored - The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality and Getting it Straight - it has been pointed out that (amongst other things) that Sprigg distorted credible research to make his point. It's obvious to Sprigg that complaints by doctors and researchers as to how their work is being distorted is a minor thing that should be ignored.

Specifically in Top Ten Myths, Sprigg cites legitimate research in order to demonize lgbts, but makes it a point to omit the part of said research which refutes his general argument about homosexuality being a "dangerous lifestyle."


Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again)


I'm sorry, but when someone conducts a study who has a conflict of interest with the possible outcome, it gives me great pause as to how the study was conducted in the first place.

Yes, because that's how these papers work.

But the abstract is there. And the COLLEGE conducted the study.

Learn to read, and research, if you're going to participate in these discussions, and want to be taken seriously.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yes, because that's how these papers work.

But the abstract is there. And the COLLEGE conducted the study.

Learn to read, and research, if you're going to participate in these discussions, and want to be taken seriously.

Forget about me for a minute and concentrate on the body of my argument.

A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study
Posted by Amy Davidson

What would make a study of how children raised by gay and lesbian parents do in life helpful? Rigor, valid comparisons, and a sense of what the words in that sentence—“raised,” “gay and lesbian,” and “parents”—might mean. None of those seem to be true of the latest work from Mark Regnerus, called the “New Family Structures Study” (a title that is itself misleading), which he writes about at Slate. It purports to show the very harmful effects of having gay and lesbian parents. This would be in contradiction to a whole series of studies in recent years that showed children in those families doing very well. Attacking the methodology of a study whose conclusions you don’t like can be a lazy default reaction. But, in this case, the way it was conducted is so breathtakingly sloppy that it is useful only as an illustration of how you can play fast and loose with statistics.

The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
No

A yes—even a single “romantic relationship”—put the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations. (And what does that yes mean? Sex once in a bar? An infatuation from a distance?) Regnerus says that he chose this question because he doesn’t want to get into sorting out who’s really gay—and that can be a complicated issue, to which he, unfortunately, has an absurd response. Because of how the study is set up, any stress to a child from living with a married man and woman, one of whom had ever had a same-sex affair of any kind, would be ascribed to having a gay or lesbian parent, and statistically erased from the analysis of “mom and pop” families. (Will Saletan and Ta-Nehisi Coates have good critiques of the study; Saletan points out that the study had conservative funders.)

It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians. Two hundred and fifty-three people said “yes” to question S7. A hundred and seventy-five said that their mother had had a relationship of some kind. As John Corvino notes at TNR, “Only 42 percent of respondents reported living with a ‘Gay Father’ and his partner for at least four months—and less than 2 percent reported doing so for at least three years.” Less than two per cent of those (two people, three?) said that their whole childhood was spent with their mother and her lesbian partner. On the basis of these distorted samples, Regnerus tells us that “28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed” and that “the young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample).” Expect to see those numbers thrown around. Keep in mind what they don’t mean.

New Documents Contradict Regnerus' Claims on Gay Parenting Study
Emails reveal close collaboration between Regnerus and Witherspoon Institute
By Brandon Watson, Fri., March 29, 2013

For social conservatives, it was a watershed moment. Faced with declining public support, they had long sought for science to confirm that same-sex households are not a suitable family arrangement. With his New Family Structures Study (NFSS), released last year, UT associate professor of sociology Mark Regnerus seemed to make the case with a clarion blast. According to his research, children raised in same-sex homes fared worse than those raised by opposite-sex parents – showing a higher propensity for drug and tobacco use, alcohol abuse, depression, and thoughts of suicide. With scholarship backing the right's message, it was not difficult to get the media to listen.

But LGBT advocacy groups were listening, too. After the reporting of the NFSS results, several were quick to highlight problems in the research – arguing that the study was not adequately peer-reviewed, and, importantly, that it had much less to say about "same-sex" relationships than about unstable marriages; as Amy Davidson summarized in a blog post for The New Yorker: "If this study shows anything, it's not the effect of gay parenting, but of non- or absentee parenting."

New Documents Contradict Regnerus' Claims on Gay Parenting Study: Emails reveal close collaboration between Regnerus and Witherspoon Institute - News - The Austin Chronicle

 

[koshergrl]

Attacking methodology is the lazy man's way...lol..

The learned community knows that if your methodology sucks, your study sucks. When you use crap methodology, you are generally being dishonest in your approach. Your little article is cute, but completely beside the point, and nothing but a justification of crap *studies* that present falsehoods as reality...and children are the ones who suffer.

 

[Vox]

Witherspoon Institute - News - The Austin Chronicle[/url]

oh, this "rebuttal" is just a typical butthurt cry. from the newspaper

children of homosexual parents differ from the children of lesbian parents, and they differ from children from standard heterosexual parents.
they have some similarities with children from the single parents homes.

 

[Vox]

Attacking methodology is the lazy man's way...lol..

The learned community knows that if your methodology sucks, your study sucks. When you use crap methodology, you are generally being dishonest in your approach. Your little article is cute, but completely beside the point, and nothing but a justification of crap *studies* that present falsehoods as reality...and children are the ones who suffer.

attacking in the NEWSPAPER ARTICLE has ZERO credibility whatsoever - for a scientific study.

there might be problems with methodology.
that is a reasonable concern for any study.

but not if that is published in a NEWSPAPER

 

[Vox]

I have at times....it usually gets ignored.

I meant from the scientific point of view.
it is a common knowledge and therefore I assume ( this is just speculation) that the reason has to be either connected to the Y chromosome or the balance of specific hormones ( which is also genetically related)

We need to start putting down all males. The correlation is obvious. That would be the most humane and moral thing to do right? Wait.....I'm a male.

then do us all a favor - and show us the example of your sacrifice for the humanity.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm not commiting an injustice in judgment. What progressives don't understand is that it is right and good to protect the vulnerable.

I seriously doubt that God is going to get all het up over the fact that I have spoken out against abortion and homosexual adoptions, given the risks posed to children by both of those establishments.

And yes, I would say with certainty that homosexual parents have a truly horrendous record, across the board...as the real studies show.

Ya, because with all of eternity to do it, G-d rushes everyone through the judgement process.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Attacking methodology is the lazy man's way...lol..

The learned community knows that if your methodology sucks, your study sucks. When you use crap methodology, you are generally being dishonest in your approach. Your little article is cute, but completely beside the point, and nothing but a justification of crap *studies* that present falsehoods as reality...and children are the ones who suffer.

Neg reping me pivotal to your argument, eh? You must not have very much in the tank to stoop to such an asinine tactic! What are you afraid of ... the truth?

This study had inadequate "peer review." Pointing it out deserves negative reputation? LMAO!

I have no need to send it back - you're outing yourself as being ignorant and unwilling to address the fact that this study is flawed.

 

[Vox]

How dar the OP notice the level of depravity of these people! To notice that homosexual parents have a really bad record is homophobic...just as it's racist to comment on the terrible state of black families and the criminality of the inner cities...and it's bigoted to associate Islam with terrorism.

The noive!

It's simply a lie...and to repeat that lie for your own purposes is what is homophobic.


But...I cannot help but notice how messed up the kids are of ultra-religious parents. A personal anecdote, I know....I I have yet to see children (young or adult) of ultra-religious parents who are not messed up.

they actually do have a lot of problems and the problems can be addressed only by acknowledging them, not by denial.

however. In order to have really comparative studies one has to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.