// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Another day, another gay rape scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another day, another gay rape scandal

    I thought something was odd about Civics because half the front page isn't full of gay threads.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/70021560/

    On Wednesday, Portland, Ore. police arrested Terrence Patrick Bean, who has been charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year. This man is not just any old guy accused of having sex with a 15-year-old – he's a big-money Democratic donor and liberal political activist with connections inside the Obama White House. Bean raised more than a half-million dollars for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

    "Bean has been one of the state's biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state," reports oregonlive.com. "He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama."

    ...

    The scandal is escalating. Thursday, according to local media, Kiah Loy Lawson, allegedly 66-year-old Bean's 25-year-old former boyfriend, was arrested by the Portland Sex Crimes Unit for sexually abusing the same boy. After the relationship between the two men ended, Lawson went public with claims that Bean had a practice of secretly videotaping himself having sex with others.

    ​This story was first reported by the local press, and there have been vague references to sexual trouble for Bean and Lawson since June, but the national media has not picked it up. That oversight is politically convenient for President Obama as he tries to pull off one of his riskiest political moves ever with his amnesty executive order.
    This is probably a good time to mention that nearly half of teen prostitutes are male, and they're not servicing grandmas gone wild:

    http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites...ve_Summary.pdf

    "Gender and age distribution: The final sample of 249 youth was 48% female, 45% male,
    and 8% transgender; and the average age of entry into the market was 15.29 years."

    "Almost all of the youth said that they served male customers"

    Gay males appear to be singificantly more likely to engage in morally questionable sexual behavior like statutory rape than straight males.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Gay males appear to be singificantly more likely to engage in morally questionable sexual behavior like statutory rape than straight males.
    Old news. The Family Research Council did a peer reviewed study some years ago and found that while homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, homosexual males account for 30% of all sex crimes against minors.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Old news. The Family Research Council did a peer reviewed study some years ago and found that while homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, homosexual males account for 30% of all sex crimes against minors.
      “Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.”

      “Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.”

      “With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up.”

      http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/facult...lestation.html
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        “Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.
        You can tell the authors are interested in the truth from the way they poison the well so blatantly.

        But let's validate it, because they can't even poison the well right:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/ny...nted=all&_r=3&

        The mohel lifted the infant’s clothing to expose his tiny penis. With a rapid flick of a sharp two-sided scalpel, the mohel sliced off the foreskin and held it between his fingers. Then he took a sip of red wine from a cup and bent his head. He placed his lips below the cut, around the base of the baby’s penis, for a split second, creating suction, then let the wine spill from his mouth out over the wound.
        I can see how a misunderstanding might arise if some peasant accidentally walked in on a circumcision and saw some rabbi with his lips wrapped around a baby's penis, blood dripping and all.

        Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.”
        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...decoverviewpdf

        Black men commit about a third of all forcible rapes even though blacks are 14% of the population.
        17% of white rape victims report being sexually assaulted or raped by black men whereas a statistical 0% of black women report being raped or sexually assaulted by white men.

        There were a total of 4742 lynchings from 1882 to 1968. Of those 3,445 were of blacks and the rest of whites.

        The black population can be seen here:

        http://blackdemographics.com/wp-cont...90-to-2012.jpg

        In the worst year for lynchings (1892) 230 blacks were lynched. In 1890 the black population was 7.5 million.

        So I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the lynching hysteria, like the Inquisition hysteria, is largely overblown.

        The reality that there is a grossly disproportionate number of boys being abused for such a small homosexual population won't go away, and your article spends most of that time waving it away by defining homosexuals as "people who don't have sex with teenage boys". This is similar wizardry to what the APA does.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          ...your article spends most of that time waving it away by defining homosexuals as "people who don't have sex with teenage boys". This is similar wizardry to what the APA does.
          It's the old "Just because a man likes to have sex with boys doesn't mean he's a homosexual" canard.

          I've seen that article before, and while it certainly spends a lot of time talking about FRC's study, it never seems to get around to actually refuting the data. Rather, it simply tries to "interpret" it differently.
          Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-21-2014, 11:40 PM.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            This is probably a good time to mention that nearly half of teen prostitutes are male, and they're not servicing grandmas gone wild:

            http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites...ve_Summary.pdf

            "Gender and age distribution: The final sample of 249 youth was 48% female, 45% male,
            and 8% transgender; and the average age of entry into the market was 15.29 years."

            "Almost all of the youth said that they served male customers"

            Gay males appear to be singificantly more likely to engage in morally questionable sexual behavior like statutory rape than straight males.
            You're misinterpreting their sample as being statistically representative sample. It wasn't. That was just who they managed to get participating in their survey.

            I live in a country where prostitution is legal, so the government has decent statistics: Less than 10% of the prostitutes are male.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man:
            The Family Research Council did a peer reviewed study
            The FRC has been labelled a 'hate group' by the SPLC for spreading lies about gay people. In particular the SPLC cites how the FRC pushes "false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia".

            I am concerned that both Mountain Man and Darth Executor show awareness that these ideas have been debunked and yet continue to repeat them. Both of you appear to be aware that the American Psychological Association, the professional association for psychologists in North America, with over 100,000 members, has concluded after extensive study that such claims are absolutely false. Knowingly repeating false claims is malicious slander. Please stop it.

            If you need to refresh your memory on the subject of what the top medical and psychological organisations do have to say about homosexuality, I suggest a read of their Supreme Court submission.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man:
            It's the old "Just because a man likes to have sex with boys doesn't mean he's a homosexual" canard.
            That is precisely what the scientists studying pedophiles have repeatedly found. In study after study, when the researchers have talked to pedophiles and asked them about their offending and motivations and researched their lives, they consistently find the following things:
            1. Any and all sexual relationships the men have with people their own age, are relationships with females.
            2. The men consider themselves "straight".
            3. When asked about what they found attractive in their young male victims, the offenders cite feminine traits. The men were apparently attracted by the femininity of their boy victims.
            Researchers have been able to explain this by considering the fact that a lot of masculine characteristics do not begin to develop until puberty, and do not fully mature until the early 20s. A pre-pubescent boy therefore has a somewhat androgynous nature, possessing both female and male characteristics. Straight men can therefore be potentially attracted to women and girls of all ages, and also to the somewhat feminine nature of young boys. So there seems to be no good reason to deny these men are straight - they claim to be straight, the relationships they have with people their own age are solely with females, and the attractiveness they find present in young boys is due to feminine traits present. In the face of that evidence, trying to claim they are 'homosexual' just seems silly.

            Homosexual men, by contrast, are less likely to be attracted to pre-pubescent boys, as the masculine characteristics they look for are not yet very present. They are more likely to be attracted to boys/men in the late teens / early 20s range, which is usually legal, though some may be attracted to boys in the 15-18 year old range which may be illegal depending on the regional age of consent. This seems to explain why on the whole homosexual men abuse children at empirically lower rates than heterosexual men.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              You're misinterpreting their sample as being statistically representative sample. It wasn't. That was just who they managed to get participating in their survey.
              Evidence?

              I live in a country where prostitution is legal, so the government has decent statistics: Less than 10% of the prostitutes are male.
              Underage prostitution is legal in your country?

              I am concerned that both Mountain Man and Darth Executor show awareness that these ideas have been debunked and yet continue to repeat them.
              We show awareness that people claim to have debunked them but that doesn't change the fact that half the teen prostitutes in the OP study are men servicing men.

              bla bla bla
              Neither the SPLC nor the APA have any credibility. They are progressive propaganda outlets who lie shamelessly for and to idiots like you.

              Anyway, this thread isn't about pedophilia, it's about gays praying on teens (which is not pedophilia but still rape and morally reprehensible) so pedophilia is at best a tangential discussion.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thread probably wouldn't be complete without mentioning Bryan Singer: for the case of very highly-placed gays throwing very poorly hidden parties for very not-adult teens:

                k1fepJ0.jpg
                Bryan Singer and totally legal, bigots.


                Roland Emmerich and perfectly normal, bigots.


                Gandalf the Gay hanging around what are not hobbits, though Singer may have some orc in him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Neither the SPLC nor the APA have any credibility.

                  The Supreme Court submission I linked to earlier, was a joint submission on the state of science about homosexuality made by (among others):
                  • The APA - The world's largest professional organisation of psychologists, with over 100,000 members
                  • The AMA - The largest professional association of doctors and medical students in the US, with over 200,000 members
                  • The AAP - The largest professional association of pediatricians in the world, with over 60,000 members
                  • American Psychiatric Association - The largest organisation of psychiatric specialists in the US, with over 30,000 members
                  • The NASW - The largest professional association of social workers in the world, with over 100,000 members


                  These expert organisations all agree about the state of scientific research into homosexuality, so much so that they were happy to make a joint submission to the US Supreme court (in another case also).

                  Now you do seem to be a bit of a conspiracy nut, but you've got to realize that what you're trying to claim is that all the major professional scientific organisations are wrong about what their own science says. If you've got some sort of conspiracy theory that gay sympathizers have got into the top APA positions and corrupted the organisation's stance on the issue or somesuch, then you've apparently got to believe that they've managed to infiltrate and gain control of all the major scientific organisations in the US and around the world for that matter! The APA is not out of line with other scientific organisations worldwide. They all say the same things and point to the same studies. Cross-checking with equivalent professional scientific organisations in other parts of the western world shows them all saying similar things and taking similar positions. This is because the scientific data on the subject is clear, and the people who are analyzing it are competent professional scientists. (Unlike you, I'm assuming) So it's not enough to attack the APA's credibility, you'd have to attack the credibility of almost every single major medical and psychological organisation worldwide. Good luck with that.

                  So in future, I suggest including in your posts the caveat that "all major professional scientific organisations in the world say the things I'm claiming are false, but I believe they are wrong." That would give people a more accurate and balanced picture of where you stand with regard to your interpretation of facts in general.

                  At the end of the day, I think you need to ask yourself this: Do you trust your doctor when you go to the hospital? I imagine you implicitly trust them with your life. So I suggest you trust all the doctors of America combined when their professional association testifies to the Supreme Court about gay people, and about how there is no scientific basis whatsoever for any of the prejudices against them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                    The Supreme Court submission I linked to earlier, was a joint submission on the state of science about homosexuality made by (among others):
                    • The APA - The world's largest professional organisation of psychologists, with over 100,000 members
                    • The AMA - The largest professional association of doctors and medical students in the US, with over 200,000 members
                    • The AAP - The largest professional association of pediatricians in the world, with over 60,000 members
                    • American Psychiatric Association - The largest organisation of psychiatric specialists in the US, with over 30,000 members
                    • The NASW - The largest professional association of social workers in the world, with over 100,000 members


                    These expert organisations all agree about the state of scientific research into homosexuality, so much so that they were happy to make a joint submission to the US Supreme court (in another case also).

                    Now you do seem to be a bit of a conspiracy nut, but you've got to realize that what you're trying to claim is that all the major professional scientific organisations are wrong about what their own science says.
                    That has never happened before. Nevermind that psychology isn't science. It should be, but it isn't. Neither is social work, and most doctors, med students and shrinks aren't scientists either.

                    If you've got some sort of conspiracy theory that gay sympathizers have got into the top APA positions and corrupted the organisation's stance on the issue or somesuch, then you've apparently got to believe that they've managed to infiltrate and gain control of all the major scientific organisations in the US and around the world for that matter! The APA is not out of line with other scientific organisations worldwide. They all say the same things and point to the same studies. Cross-checking with equivalent professional scientific organisations in other parts of the western world shows them all saying similar things and taking similar positions. This is because the scientific data on the subject is clear, and the people who are analyzing it are competent professional scientists. (Unlike you, I'm assuming) So it's not enough to attack the APA's credibility, you'd have to attack the credibility of almost every single major medical and psychological organisation worldwide. Good luck with that.
                    The overwhelming majority of individuals in those organizations, even in non-scientific fields, like psychology, haven't done any research on the subject, so hurling numbers at me is just a logical fallacy.

                    So in future, I suggest including in your posts the caveat that "all major professional scientific organisations in the world say the things I'm claiming are false, but I believe they are wrong." That would give people a more accurate and balanced picture of where you stand with regard to your interpretation of facts in general.
                    Who will you believe, the gazillions of scientists who have nothing to do with research on homosexuality or your own lying eyes?

                    At the end of the day, I think you need to ask yourself this: Do you trust your doctor when you go to the hospital?
                    At the end of the day, I think you need to ask yourself this: Do you need to put a little more work into your logical fallacies?

                    Usually there's no reason for a doctor to lie to me about my diagnostic, though some do anyway for personal gain. There is, OTOH, a good reason for psychologists, most of whom are progressive, and themselves mentally ill, to lie about homosexuality.

                    I imagine you implicitly trust them with your life. So I suggest you trust all the doctors of America combined when their professional association testifies to the Supreme Court about gay people, and about how there is no scientific basis whatsoever for any of the prejudices against them.
                    Nah. There's no need to trust because I already know they're either lying, incompetent or ignorant. For example, in that SC submission you linked they claim there's no difference between gay and straight parents but that's not true:

                    http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...ered-in-school

                    Allen's study, published in the October issue of the Review of the Economics of the Household, is based on a 20 percent sampling of Canada's 2006 census, in which respondents indicated whether they were raised by a lesbian couple, a male homosexual couple, a married traditional couple, a common law couple, a single mother, or a single father. The study went on to compare high school graduation rates of young adults raised in each of those households.

                    Allen's findings challenge the notion that children raised in households headed by homosexual couples fare just as well as kids in traditional homes. While children of traditional married couples had the highest high school graduation rates, children raised by lesbian couples were at the other end of the spectrum with the lowest graduation rates. They were followed by children of common-law couples, male homosexual pairs, single moms, and single fathers, whose graduation rates were all similar but still lower than those of kids in traditional homes.

                    Among the most alarming of Allen's findings was that young adult females in households headed by same-sex partners had dismal graduation rates, with girls in homes led by male homosexual partners 85 percent less likely to graduate from high school than girls from homes with a mom and dad.

                    Allen has been critical of the scores of studies over the past 15 years that have purported to show that there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised in homes headed by traditional couples. Allen has charged that much of the research is biased and unscientific.
                    Color me shocked.

                    Seeing how you can plainly see with your own eyes the type of manipulative games "scientists" play (like the lynching/blood liberl well poisoning in the article linked earlier) I see no reason to just "trust them". These people are so shameless they don't even try to disguise their shilling with neutral sounding language.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      There is, OTOH, a good reason for psychologists, most of whom are progressive, and themselves mentally ill, to lie about homosexuality.
                      Most psychologists are mentally ill?
                      I think this conversation is probably over...

                      For example, in that SC submission you linked they claim there's no difference between gay and straight parents
                      Yes, it did. Because over 50 studies have found that there was no difference in outcomes.

                      Several obvious flaws in the study's methodology seemed apparent to me on first glance. (I'm also concerned that it's published in an extremely low-impact-factor Economics journal, meaning it will have avoided any serious scrutiny by peer reviewers prior to publication) Googling it I found this summary of several major problems with the study that render the study worthless. Googling further, it appears that the author of the study testified on the witness stand to his belief that gay people are going to hell. He appears to be a member of, and funded by, the same set of conservative advocacy groups that brought us the infamous Regnerus study that was deliberately rigged to give an anti-gay result and which completely fell apart under scientific scrutiny.

                      Edited to add: It's worth noting that when that study's author, Douglas Allen, took the stand in court to testify about his study, the judge, a Ronald Reagan appointee, concluded that Allen's study had several fatal flaws, particularly that "when Allen controlled for parental education, marital status and five years of residential stability, he discovered that there was no statistically significant difference in graduation rates." In other words, once Allen's data is more carefully analysed, it yields the same conclusion as the other 50 studies - that same sex parents are no different at parenting to opposite sex parents. In his conclusion, the judge wrote that "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. ... They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields."
                      Last edited by Starlight; 11-23-2014, 02:11 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Most psychologists are mentally ill?
                        I think this conversation is probably over...
                        Social workers are scientists?

                        Yes, it did. Because over 50 studies have found that there was no difference in outcomes.
                        Would be interesting to see if any of these 50 studies can withstand high scrutiny to their methodology.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To answer the only part of your post worth anything:

                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Googling it I found this summary of several major problems with the study that render the study worthless.
                          Actually there is paragraph after paragraph of red herrings and the author being confused about simple things. For example since he's not Canadian (or willing to spend 5 minutes thinking about it and googling a bit) I can explain to him why a lot more 17-22 year olds living at home in Canada makes sense: our population is concentrated more heavily in a small number of areas. The top 10 largest Canadian cities hold nearly a third of our population. The US top 10 hold about 8-9%. That means there's a lot less need for kids to go away from home for college or to find work. The US and Canada have drastically different cultural and ethnic demographics too. There are a number of areas in which they should not be compared and this is one of them.

                          Some of the arguments are straight up bizarre, like the climax of the paper:

                          Think about the population like this: Here are some possible scenarios for 17-22 year-olds. The “live at home” column represent the people in Allen’s sample; the “doesn’t live at home” column represents threats to the validity of his sample. If the distribution across these columns is correlated with family structure, the study is wrong. What are the odds?

                          Live at home Doesn’t live at home
                          High school dropout Happy and supportive family; or stuck at home with no exit plan Successfully employed and independent; or unsuccessful and miserably kicked out of the house; married or not.
                          High school graduate In college and living with happy and supportive family; in college and stuck at home because can’t afford rent; not in college and living with happy and supportive family; or not in college and stuck at home because too poor to move out. Successfully employed and independent; independently poor and miserable (or married); successfully in college and living on parents’ money; in college but not supported by parents.
                          His argument is that a study showing signficiantly lower graduation rates could still show gays make good parents because it's possible that all of those kids who didn't graduate from high school could be genius entrepreneurs.

                          Who raised them?

                          That problem is so bad that you don’t need to worry about the problem of who raised these young adults, which is supposed to be the issue in the first place.

                          They live with their parents. But for how long have they done that, and for how long have their parents been in gay or lesbian relationships? We can’t know. Allen controls for whether the child has moved in the last year or five years, but we don’t know if the parents moved with them. Controlling for whether they have moved doesn’t address this. A full 60% of the lesbian-mother kids and 39% of the gay-father kids have moved in the last five years, compared with just 24% of the different-sex-married-parent kids. Their life stories are in these mobility histories, and the paper can’t say anything about that.
                          Actually this would have made a better centerpiece since there's more opportunity for less retarded speculation like the above, but I guess the author didn't have the sense for that. Nevertheless, he's wrong. The paper can say something about these mobility histories, and does: they don't make a difference. Controlling for them, which would mean removing all the kids with mobility history from the sample, doesn't change anything.

                          About the only problem I see with the study is that there isn't an extended family history available, but that doesn't change the fact that this study is in fact a serious piece of evidence against the proclamations of the progressive muttaween. I might have more to add tomorrow.

                          that was deliberately rigged to give an anti-gay result and which completely fell apart under scientific scrutiny.

                          It's worth noting that when that study's author, Douglas Allen, took the stand in court to testify about his study, the judge, a Ronald Reagan appointee, concluded that Allen's study had several fatal flaws, particularly that "when Allen controlled for parental education, marital status and five years of residential stability, he discovered that there was no statistically significant difference in graduation rates." In other words, once Allen's data is more carefully analysed, it yields the same conclusion as the other 50 studies - that same sex parents are no different at parenting to opposite sex parents. In his conclusion, the judge wrote that "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. ... They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields."
                          The study explicitly controls for the 5 years of residential stability and the whole thing is about the marital status of the parents, so the judge's claim looks more like he didn't quite understand what was going on. I e-mailed Dr. Allen about this, hopefully he will respond and clarify.
                          Last edited by Darth Executor; 11-23-2014, 04:00 AM.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            Would be interesting to see if any of these 50 studies can withstand high scrutiny to their methodology.
                            Some of them have issues. But on the whole they can indeed withstand high levels of scrutiny, and they have been subjected to such scrutiny by the scientific organisations I cited which have discussed those studies extensively in their court testimonies. For example, in the court case in which Douglas Allen's study was found to be sadly lacking, the conservative judge had much more positive things to say about the work of Rosenfeld and Brodzinsky showing no difference in parenting ability between straight and gay couples. The judge wrote:
                            The Court finds Rosenfeld’s testimony to be highly credible and gives it great weight. His research convincingly shows that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as the children of heterosexual married couples, and that same-sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples. The Court notes that the testimony of Brodzinsky and Rosenfeld is in line with a strong “no differences” consensus within the professional associations in the psychological and sociological fields. Brodzinsky made the following statement in his expert witness report, which defendants did not challenge:

                            "Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Some of them have issues. But on the whole they can indeed withstand high levels of scrutiny, and they have been subjected to such scrutiny by the scientific organisations I cited which have discussed those studies extensively in their court testimonies. For example, in the court case in which Douglas Allen's study was found to be sadly lacking, the conservative judge had much more positive things to say about the work of Rosenfeld and Brodzinsky showing no difference in parenting ability between straight and gay couples. The judge wrote:
                              I wonder if you've read all the 50+ studies you wave around, let alone one.

                              Come. Name the top 5 strongest studies, and summarise their scope and their methodological weaknesses. Or top 10, or all 50+ if you want. Let's see if you give the studies that you favour as much critical evaluation as the studies that you rubbish.

                              Or do you just rely on others' claims that these studies are good?
                              Last edited by Paprika; 11-23-2014, 06:51 AM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 08:11 PM
                              4 responses
                              31 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Bill the Cat  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:16 PM
                              28 responses
                              115 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 12:47 PM
                              17 responses
                              69 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                              34 responses
                              298 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by seanD, 10-18-2020, 05:25 PM
                              2 responses
                              63 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Working...
                              X