Why don't you Libtard/ Progressives/ Democrats just say it?

Southern Man said:
I never implied all traditional marriages were perfect, just that a traditional marriage is a healthier environment to bring up children than a comparable queer marriage.
Click to expand...

III. WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

How should legal thinkers and decision-makers evaluate such competing claims about family structure and child well-being both allegedly grounded in social science evidence?

Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted.12 At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.13

Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada. Nock concluded:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14

Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that "there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families."15


Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).


Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother's report of her parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.


No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.
But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this:

The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers. As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, "[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother-headed families."16

Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family.

Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.
 
Southern Man said:
I never implied all traditional marriages were perfect, just that a traditional marriage is a healthier environment to bring up children than a comparable queer marriage.
Click to expand...

Since you didn't expand on your comment, you left it open to speculation.

Now, would you care to explain why you feel that a hetrosexual marriange is a nore healthier enviroment.
 
IceDancer, oddly the section above the one you quoted had very different information.

From the same site:

"II. THE SOCIAL SCIENCE OF GAY PARENTING: A COMPETING BODY OF EVIDENCE?

Most of the research on family structure, however, does not directly compare children in intact married homes with children raised from birth by same-sex couples. Thus the powerful new consensus on family structure is on a collision course with a separate emerging consensus from a related field: the social science literature on sexual orientation and parenting.

Judith Stacey summed up this new challenge to the social science consensus on family structure in testimony before the U.S. Senate this way:

The research shows that what places children at risk is not fatherlessness, but the absence of economic and social resources that a qualified second parent can provide, whether male or female. . . . Moreover, the research on children raised by lesbian and gay parents demonstrates that these children do as well if not better than children raised by heterosexual parents. Specifically, the research demonstrates that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents.8

Other researchers, including at least two prominent professional associations, have made similar claims.9 Advocates for same-sex marriage often rely on these studies to assert that scientific evidence shows that married mothers and fathers hold no advantages for children. As Mary Bonauto, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage litigation, wrote in the Summer 2003 edition of Human Rights, "[C]hild-rearing experts in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association insist that the love and commitment of two parents is most critical for children -- not the parents' sex or sexual orientation."10

Similarly Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, asserted recently, "[T]here is no evidence to support the offensive proposition that only one size of family must fit all. Most studies -- including the ones that [Maggie] Gallagher relies on -- reflect the common sense that what counts is not the family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household."11 "

(the bold and underline is mine)
 
WinterBorn said:
IceDancer, oddly the section above the one you quoted had very different information.
Click to expand...

It was not odd at all. Note the "part III" as in there was a part II. The point being that the conclusions that part II arrived at were not done so with any measurable or scientific data.

Meaning of course that there has been no real studies specific to unisex parenting to make any claim that they are as good or better than natural two parent families.

I posted the link so that the whole report could be read. I posted the portion with the emphasis on the final analysis.
 
Ice Dancer said:
It was not odd at all. Note the "part III" as in there was a part II. The point being that the conclusions that part II arrived at were not done so with any measurable or scientific data.

Meaning of course that there has been no real studies specific to unisex parenting to make any claim that they are as good or better than natural two parent families.

I posted the link so that the whole report could be read. I posted the portion with the emphasis on the final analysis.
Click to expand...

So in other words he is implying that he thought you were doing what he is guilty of.

Posting what supports his argument and not all sides.
 
Ice Dancer said:
III. WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

How should legal thinkers and decision-makers evaluate such competing claims about family structure and child well-being both allegedly grounded in social science evidence?

Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted.12 At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.13

Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada. Nock concluded:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14

Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that "there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families."15


Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).


Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother's report of her parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.


No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.
But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this:

The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers. As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, "[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother-headed families."16

Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family.

Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.
Click to expand...
As you will also learn if you study any of these studies, is that NONE were controlled for economics. Single mothers, whether breeder or queer, are almost always POORER than the mother/father families. But no controls for economics are made between mother/father families from the different socio-economic classes. I can guarentee you that children raised by rich in tact families do better than children from impoverished in tact family. Just as I am certain that children in wealthy single parent households do better than children in impoverish single parent households. Hell, when I went from living with my mother to living with my dad after they got divorced, I did much better. My dad wasn't always drunk, didn't have to work longer hours and made 8 to 10 times what my mom made. My brother and I were better off. Hell my brother and I were better off than most of my friends raised by two parents. I had tutors, which helped me in school, we never had to choose between healthcare and house payments. None of the problems faced by families that didn't make 300k+ per year. After my dad remarried it got even better, and was tons better than my life was when my "in tact" family was in tact. My stepmom was and is a far superior mother to my bio mom. Control all these studies for economics and then get back to me.
 
Socrtease said:
As you will also learn if you study any of these studies, is that NONE were controlled for economics. Single mothers, whether breeder or queer, are almost always POORER than the mother/father families. But no controls for economics are made between mother/father families from the different socio-economic classes. I can guarentee you that children raised by rich in tact families do better than children from impoverished in tact family. Just as I am certain that children in wealthy single parent households do better than children in impoverish single parent households. Hell, when I went from living with my mother to living with my dad after they got divorced, I did much better. My dad wasn't always drunk, didn't have to work longer hours and made 8 to 10 times what my mom made. My brother and I were better off. Hell my brother and I were better off than most of my friends raised by two parents. I had tutors, which helped me in school, we never had to choose between healthcare and house payments. None of the problems faced by families that didn't make 300k+ per year. After my dad remarried it got even better, and was tons better than my life was when my "in tact" family was in tact. My stepmom was and is a far superior mother to my bio mom. Control all these studies for economics and then get back to me.
Click to expand...


OH MY a fucking personal story how totally typical~~~ and how totally irrelevent.

What we do have is socio economic evidence that children do best in homes with a married mom and dad. There exists no actual body of scientific research that CAN make the same claim about unisex couples.
 
It is up to those arguing that sexual orientation affects parenting to prove their claims. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it is true. It is just another one of the arguments that was used to rationalize racism that has been adopted by the gay-bashers.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
So in other words he is implying that he thought you were doing what he is guilty of.

Posting what supports his argument and not all sides.
Click to expand...

Of course I post what supports my argument. I am not doing my opponents work for them.

That the studies all had various flaws is not surprising. When conducting studies of large numbers of family situations in which there are no major problems, it is difficult (if not impossible) to get participants. The best you get is people willing to answer questions about themselves. And conducting studies of large numbers of families makes using normal scientific method difficult at best. You cannot put the controls on them as you might do in other scientific studies.

However, the flaws do not make the data unuseable. The fact that gay & lesbian parents raise children that are happy, healthy and well adjusted is documented clearly.
 
All that is needed, is 1 example of homosexuals as good parents. State action is not justified even if the collectivists can prove that homosexuals, on average, make for worse parents and that the difference is statistically significant. What the collectivists want here is for us to judge individuals based on the claim that the group has too many bad apples rather than based on the individual.

There is no reason why a homosexual can not be a good parent.

Further, I don't see how parenting skills are a prerequisite for marriage. So how is it even relevant?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you didn't expand on your comment, you left it open to speculation.

Now, would you care to explain why you feel that a hetrosexual marriange is a nore healthier enviroment.
Click to expand...
Because children get to see two different perspectives, of a man and of a woman.
 
Ice Dancer said:
III. WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

How should legal thinkers and decision-makers evaluate such competing claims about family structure and child well-being both allegedly grounded in social science evidence?

Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted.12 At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.13

Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada. Nock concluded:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14

Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that "there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families."15


Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).


Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother's report of her parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.


No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.
But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this:

The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers. As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, "[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother-headed families."16

Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family.

Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I didn't realize you were talking about kids who were isolated from the rest of the world; but I guess this would explain your resoniing.
Click to expand...
You must be on of those "It Takes a Village" people. Here's the reality: it takes two parents, one man and one woman.

Sure, lots of kids grow up with singe parents, a dead bead dad, or queer parents and come out OK. But their chances are much better in a traditional home.
 
Southern Man said:
You must be on of those "It Takes a Village" people. Here's the reality: it takes two parents, one man and one woman.

Sure, lots of kids grow up with singe parents, a dead bead dad, or queer parents and come out OK. But their chances are much better in a traditional home.
Click to expand...

Your proof??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top