What's new

So gay!!!

"The pervasiveness of social prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against lesbians and gay men exerts a powerful policing affect on the basic terms of psychological research and public discourse on the significance of parental sexual orientation," Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz write in a report in the American Sociological Review. It's not that [researchers] are being dishonest," Stacey said in an interview. "But what we say is there are intriguing, provocative differences found in these studies."

Researchers, they say, ought to be honest about their personal convictions and let the political chips fall where they may. Stacey and Biblarz admit in their own review that they believe in a "diverse" and "pluralistic" family structure that does not discriminate against same-sex households. Any differences found in research on children do not necessarily constitute "deficits," they say, and ought to be acknowledged and studied more thoroughly.

Stacey and Biblarz claim that "it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."

In reexamining the data from earlier studies, Stacey and Biblarz in fact found significant differences between gay-parented and hetero-parented children. Among them:

A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

I don't have access to this whole article, and I'm not even trying to argue for one side of the other. The points I think are worth considering are (1) the claim that prior studies have been methodologically flawed and "result-driven" by scientists seeking to prove a given outcome, and (2) the claim that it is now generally acknowledged that no (reliable) definitive evidence for either view has emerged. This alone would certainly undermine the judge's claim, even if he is right.

Meese's claim could also be supported by this 80 page report, by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine. It says there that "the State of Florida used this kind of scientific research provided by Dr. Rekers in defending the law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children." This "study" appears to cite close to 300 scholarly articles, eh, Eric? I wonder if you have read them all. I'm assuming that you've never seen this particular research paper, so if you're interested ya can look here:

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I get what you're saying, eh Taint? Could you please do like 3 or 5 posts in a row so I can understand you better?

Thanks.
 
I have to say, aintnuthin is probably the best troll on the entire internet. Anybody who actually takes time to argue with him really needs to take a step back and realize you're being trolled HARD.
 
"Tuesday, January 11, 2005: The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would not hear a challenge to Florida's unique-in-the-nation ban on adoptions by gays...Without comment or published dissent, the court declined a petition from four gay foster parents and their foster children, who argued that the Florida law, adopted in 1977, violates constitutional rights the Supreme Court recognized when it struck down Texas's ban on same-sex sodomy in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas. The court's action leaves in place a 2 to 1 ruling last year by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which upheld the Florida law as a rational expression of the state legislature's view that households headed by married heterosexuals are best for children.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62672-2005Jan10.html


In the course of upholding this ban the federal appellate court said: "In considering appellants' argument, we must ask not whether the latest in social science research and professional opinion support the decision of the Florida legislature, but whether that evidence is so well established and so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational for the Florida legislature to believe that the interests of its children are best served by not permitting homosexual adoption. Also, we must credit any conceivable rational reason that the legislature might have for choosing not to alter its statutory scheme in response to this recent social science research. We must assume, for example, that the legislature might be aware of the critiques of the studies cited by appellants -- critiques that have highlighted significant flaws in the studies' methodologies and conclusions, such as the use of small, self-selected samples; reliance on self-report instruments; politically driven hypotheses; and the use of unrepresentative study populations consisting of disproportionately affluent, educated parents.

https://www.danpinello.com/Lofton.htm

Why does this federal appellate court seem to think it MUST consider (or at least assume the state considered) "critiques" of the studies presented by the plaintiffs, I wonder? The gay judge in San Francisco didn't seem to think he had to. For him, like you, Eric, they didn't seem to even exist.

Kicky, the bigshot lawyer, seemed to be VERY IMPRESSED that the Judge Vaughn Walker, found, as a matter of fact, that there is no conceivable rational reason for upholding prop 8. I have a feeling ths Appellate Courts, might also be very IMPRESSED (or maybe SHOCKED is a better word). Doesn't seem like it would take much to overturn Judge Walker on legal grounds, if they care to. Unfortunately for Kicky, the fact that an opinion may ignore the law, and ignore all contrary evidence, only makes it easier, not harder, to overrule, contrary to what he seemed to assume.
 
Last edited:
If you choose to actively look for evidence of arguments that you doubt are accurate, fine.

I do, Eric. You obviously don't. Any "doubt" you choose to harbor seems to settle the issue for you.

However, I don't see you making a lot of posts that include the results of such research.

I got suckered into making a few such posts, eh, Eric? Satisfied, or do you want, like, mebbe one million more?
 
Another vicious burn. How WILL I go on?

I'd suggest using one of these. I can't believe your floozie mother didn't tell you about them.
cl-3m_tampon.jpg
 
aint, you sure love to constantly criticize sirkickyass as being a pompous "know-it-all" - but you win the prize in that category - well, maybe you don't "know it all" but you sure as hell think you do, and you are far more pompous about it too.

you've consistently ranted about "substance" in this and other threads, but you have none yourself. you don't need to grow a pair, you need to cut yours off.
 
Back
Top