So gay!!!

[Hopper]

If Alabama chooses to to defend the case, that is their right to make that choice. If no one defends the case, segregation returns.

1. You presume that a governor has the "right" to refuse to uphold his oath.

2. The question was whether you would "support" exercising what you presuppose to be a "right" in this way. You didn't even answer that, that I can tell.

It would remove a justification that could be used by a governor to ignore Proposition 8.

Given the question it's addressed to, and the factual context, this makes no sense whatsover. A supreme ruling which REVERSES it's prior rulings, and thereby prevents prop 8 from being enforced, would suddenly *remove* any "justification" he previously had to ignore prop 8? Surely you mean to say something else.

The writings of scholars are evidence?

Good question. Are they? That's mainly what the judge relied on, it seems. To the extent he wants to make factual findings about "history," it seems he would have to rely on the contempory writings of people who are no longer alive.

I haven't seen nor heard of any studies where having two same-sex genedered parent has produced different outcomes than two opposite-sexed parents. So far, all the studies seem to say there is no difference. So, I find the declaration of "monumental evidence" by Meese to be faulty.

Interesting logic here, eh, Eric?

1. Meese claims to have seen the evidence, you haven't, but you declare his statement about what the record contains to be faulty "because" you haven't seen it?

2. You haven't "seen" certain studies, but know what "all the studies" say? I have come across many professional articles which definitely do NOT conclude that "parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," and certainly not "BEYOND ANY DOUBT," as this judge finds. It makes me wonder why you haven't, assuming you read such studies at all. Do you only "see" studies" that are published or summarized in gay activist websites, or something?

 

[One Brow]

The question was whether you would "support" exercising what you presuppose to be a "right" in this way. You didn't even answer that, that I can tell.

Perhaps you could go back and read it again, then.

Given the question it's addressed to, and the factual context, this makes no sense whatsover. A supreme ruling which REVERSES it's prior rulings, and thereby prevents prop 8 from being enforced, would suddenly *remove* any "justification" he previously had to ignore prop 8? Surely you mean to say something else.

I read you as saying that the Supreme court would overtuen the judge's ruling, saying Prop 8 does not conflict with the 14th Amendment.

Good question. Are they? That's mainly what the judge relied on, it seems. To the extent he wants to make factual findings about "history," it seems he would have to rely on the contempory writings of people who are no longer alive.

For historical evidence, I expect there are the equivalent of peer-reviewed sources that could be used, sure.

Interesting logic here, eh, Eric?

1. Meese claims to have seen the evidence, you haven't, but you declare his statement about what the record contains to be faulty "because" you haven't seen it?

Given the tone of Meese's editorial, and my previous history in these discussion, I doubt he has seen evidence, yes. It would be easy enough to dispel such doubts: provide evidence. Of course, its much easier to cast aspersions and say the burdenis on me to find proof for Meese's arguments.

2. You haven't "seen" certain studies, but know what "all the studies" say? I have come across many professional articles which definitely do NOT conclude that "parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," and certainly not "BEYOND ANY DOUBT," as this judge finds. It makes me wonder why you haven't, assuming you read such studies at all. Do you only "see" studies" that are published or summarized in gay activist websites, or something?

You can find "professional articles" that say all types of things. That doesn't make them studies.

 

[Hopper]

OK, Eric. I get the feeling you don't really care to discuss these matters in good faith. You simply want, without evidence, to deny any proposition you don't like or don't care to hear about. You simply call Meese a liar, and present your ignorance of studies which do exist as proof that they don't.

 

[TroutBum]

OK, Eric. I get the feeling you don't really care to discuss these matters in good faith. You simply want, without evidence, to deny any proposition you don't like or don't care to hear about. You simply call Meese a liar, and present your ignorance of studies which do exist as proof that they don't.

Or it could be that you're a stupid douche bag. I'm going to go with the latter.

 

[Hopper]

I don't plan to quibble with you about what a "study" is or go to effort to spoon-feed you with information you could easily get for yourself if you wanted to know about it. That said, here's an excerpt from the first website I came across:

"Michael E. Lamb is head of the Section on Social and Emotional Development in the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. And he’s the editor of the 4th Edition of The Role of the Father in Child Development, just published this year by John Wiley and Sons. Now the Association of American Psychologists has described the work of Michael Lamb as having an extraordinarily significant and enduring influence on scholarship and on the conditions of children worldwide,

Michael Lamb: Well I think the general point is that fathers play an extremely important role in their children’s development, that it’s a role that serves children best when it’s initiated as early as possible in the child’s life." https://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s1099987.htm

So, the development of a child with two "mothers" would be just the same as one with a mother and father, eh? After all, it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I don't plan to quibble with you about what a "study" is or go to effort to spoon-feed you with information you could easily get for yourself if you wanted to know about it. That said, here's an excerpt from the first website I came across:

"Michael E. Lamb is head of the Section on Social and Emotional Development in the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. And he’s the editor of the 4th Edition of The Role of the Father in Child Development, just published this year by John Wiley and Sons. Now the Association of American Psychologists has described the work of Michael Lamb as having an extraordinarily significant and enduring influence on scholarship and on the conditions of children worldwide,

Michael Lamb: Well I think the general point is that fathers play an extremely important role in their children’s development, that it’s a role that serves children best when it’s initiated as early as possible in the child’s life." https://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s1099987.htm

So, the development of a child with two "mothers" would be just the same as one with a mother and father, eh? After all, it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

I think we can go in circles and circles about this, Gary. The fact of the matter remains that Michael Lamb had NOTHING to do with the development of that child. Its two mothers were the surrogates for its moral fiber, not Lamb, and I would even go as far to argue that Lamb was the one who taught the child the ten commandments.

Secondly, although you seem to be shifting slowly over to my point of view, I have to disagree with your premise that the child has two mothers. The child, in fact, has three mothers and nothing will change that fact. You can give quote after quote, but the child will always have four mothers.

- Craig

 

[Hopper]

Craig, if your posts were even 1/10 as interesting, revelant, and insightful if they purport to be, they would be welcome read. If they are intended to be humorous....well, everybody has his own sense of humor, I spoze. Yours aint mine, I guess.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Craig, if you're posts were even 1/10 as interesting, revelant, and insightful if they purport to be, they would be welcome read. If they are intended to be humorous....well, everybody has his own sense of humor, I spoze. Yours aint mine, I guess.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree Gary. I don't have a problem with Michael Lamb owning that child, but then again, maybe I just haven't had the life experiences you have had to make the gut distinction between right and wrong. Gay rights is a tough issue to tackle, one that requires pages and pages of public discourse and back and forth PM's.

-Craig

 

[billyshelby]

A summary of expert testimony Micheal E Lamb provided in a 2008 Florida case to overturn a ban on gay adoption:

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/re-gill-summary-scientific-evidence

Testimony about the scientific research on the well-being of children raised by gay parents: Dr. Michael Lamb

The expert testimony showed that over 40 years of scientific research in the field of child development has established that the predictors of children’s healthy adjustment are: i) the quality of the child’s relationship with the parent(s) —a relationship characterized by warmth, closeness, and parental sensitivity and commitment promotes healthy adjustment; ii) the quality of the relationship between the parents (if there are two)—harmonious relationships support healthy adjustment of children while significant conflict impedes it; and iii) adequate resources. This is widely recognized among child development researchers and a topic about which there is consensus in the field.

The scientific research also shows that these same three factors correlate with children’s adjustment in all sorts of family forms. If the quality of the parent-child relationships is good, the relationship between the parents is harmonious (if there are two), and there are adequate resources, children develop equally well in a range of “non-traditional” family environments, e.g., divorced families, single parent families, families with employed mothers and stay at home fathers, and families in which children spend time in day care. This is widely accepted among child development researchers and a matter of consensus within the field.

Thus, before the commencement of scientific research studying children of gay parents, there was no basis to start with the assumption that being raised by gay parents would have adverse effects on children.

When researchers did study gay parents and their children, they consistently found that gay people do not differ from heterosexuals in terms of the quality of their parenting and that children raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted psychologically, socially and academically as children raised by heterosexual parents.

Numerous studies of gay parent families have been conducted by various well-respected developmental psychologists since the 1970s.

This body of research includes studies that compare children raised since birth in same-sex and married heterosexual couple families, studies of subjects drawn from representative samples, longitudinal studies following subjects over a period of time, and some studies of families with gay adoptive parents.

The findings were uniform; not a single one of these studies found an elevated rate of adjustment problems among children raised by gay parents.

That being raised by gay parents has no adverse impact on children’s healthy adjustment is a topic of consensus within all of the professional fields dedicated to children’s health and welfare—psychology, psychiatry, pediatrics, social work and child welfare. The major national professional associations in those fields, including the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League of America, have taken public positions against restrictions on placing children with gay parents.

 

[One Brow]

OK, Eric. I get the feeling you don't really care to discuss these matters in good faith. You simply want, without evidence, to deny any proposition you don't like or don't care to hear about. You simply call Meese a liar, and present your ignorance of studies which do exist as proof that they don't.

That said, here's an excerpt from the first website I came across:

...

So, the development of a child with two "mothers" would be just the same as one with a mother and father, eh? After all, it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

Well, Hopper, I use enough good faith that I don't present discussions about single parenting vs. double parenting, and pretend they address the notion of same-sex marriage. Nor did I say Meese was a liar. You complete and utter disregard for the truth in those two posts is clear.

 

[Hopper]

"Research into fatherhood claims that the impact of fathers may be a ‘slow-burn’ - less significant than mothers in the younger years – but holding great benefits for the child as it reaches adolescence and adulthood. Michael Lamb is one of the world’s foremost researchers on fatherhood and has now released the fourth edition of the book The Role of the Father in Child Development which brings together the world’s best investigators in the field."

Seems kinda funny that a guy who authors a book entitled "The Role of the Father in Child Development," which elucidates the different benefits parental gender confer in the development of children, could somehow be interpreted to be saying that "it is beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," don't it?

If that's the case, I wonder how anyone could claim that: "Research into fatherhood claims that the impact of fathers may be a ‘slow-burn’ - less significant than mothers in the younger years – but holding great benefits for the child as it reaches adolescence and adulthood."

 

[Hopper]

"...we'll doubtless hear plenty from each side about the research on same-sex parenting and its effects on kids. What's surprising is that both camps have converged lately on a very basic point: The existing science is methodologically flawed and ideologically skewed.

You wouldn't guess from the current "expert" position on homosexual child-rearing that the data are in any doubt...But behind the scenes, skeptics have emerged—and from an unexpected quarter. It's hardly startling to find conservative family-values crusaders and opponents of gay marriage balking at the verdict and challenging the validity of several decades' worth of data....What's jarring is to hear champions of family diversity and gay marriage chiming in. Who would have predicted this camp would come up with the most incisive critique of the claim that research has proved there are no differences between kids raised by gay and straight parents?

Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists...Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny."

Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies...As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science.

All the evidence—as both sides acknowledge—is seriously flawed and doesn't begin to supply anything like solid support for either the hopes of gay family harmony or the fears about scarred children and skewed parenting. And until gay couples are allowed to marry, there can't possibly be decent studies of whether the honorable estate confers the same benefits on kids whose parents are the same sex as it does on those who have a mom and a dad. In the meantime, it's quite clear that the absence of good science won't—and shouldn't—settle a fraught debate."

https://www.slate.com/id/2097048

The author here makes it clear that she is in favor of same-sex parenting.