So gay!!!

[Hopper]

Any criticism to direct at the Exodus study (0.3%), or Schroeder & Shidlo (0.5%)?

I have no further comment on this witch-inhabited, unprofessional blog, eh, Eric? I think your (1) thoughtless citation of it and (2) subsequent defense of it's ridiculous methodology, tells me all I need to know about why it was published to begin with (there's one born every minute, according to Barnum). Anyone interested in their methods and conclusions can go there, read it themselves, and form their own criticisms or whole-hearted approval of the contents, as they see fit.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

I have no further comment on this witch-inhabited, unprofessional blog, eh, Eric? I think your (1) thoughtless citation of it and (2) subsequent defense of it's ridiculous methodology, tells me all I need to know about why it was published to begin with (there's one born every minute, according to Barnum). Anyone interested in their methods and conclusions can go there, read it themselves, and form their own criticisms or whole-hearted approval of the contents, as they see fit.

suckaz n mark *** bustaz.

 

[Hopper]

suckaz n mark *** bustaz.

Perzakly, Clutch.

But, ya know, talkin bout our old homey, P.T. Barnum, and all, I never believed he actually said "Theys a sukka born every minute." That boy was a straight-up PLAYER, I tellya, and wouldn't never go around understatin nuthin, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Hopper]

Refuting Walker's claim, to the degree it happened, it not the same as supporting Meese's claim (which the advocate also refuted).

Heh...

Meese said this: "...[Judge Walker found] that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record." I realize that Meese's entire statement was referring to a wide variety of alleged facts, not just those pertaining to the putative irrelevance of parental gender. But that is what our discussion has been about. I broke those down separately, and it was only this last claim that we have been discussing since that post.

It takes virtually nothing from Meese to refute this. All he has to show is that there is *some* (however slight) doubt about the claimed irrelevancy of gender. Such doubt need not be in any way related to children raised by same-sex "couples," but it can be. Your statement above was in response to mine, citing the study of Stacy and Biblarz, so let's just look at that alone for a second. Make no mistake about it, both of these researchers are homosexual and both are strong advocates of same-sex marriage. Even so, while noting that "it is the claim that the gender mix of parents has no effect on their children’s gender behavior, interests, or development that cries out for sociological explanation," they say:

"Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sexuality of children reared by lesbigay parents and those raised by nongay parents—but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents"

In other words, "virtually all of the published research" offers up the "implausible" as being the actual case, without even a semblance of "credible theory" to explain such an implausibility. This may well be what Meese had in mind when referring to what "common sense" tells us, with or without the assistance of psychologists with a social agenda they wish to implement. Stacy and Biblarz continue:

"In fact, the only “theory” of child development we can imagine in which a child’s sexual development would bear no relationship to parental genes, practices, environment, or beliefs would be an arbitrary one. Yet this is precisely the outcome that most scholars report, although the limited empirical record does not justify it." Although I did not quote it all, they first looked at conceivable expectations generated by (1) biological determinist theory, (2) social constructionist theory, (3) psychoanalytic theory and/or (4) J. Harris’s (1998) maverick theory, all of which they say would predict relevant differences, before making this second statement.

Once again they clearly state that the "empirical record" does not justify the "arbitrary" theory of child development which Walker said was "beyond doubt." That after having already said that it was so "implausible" as to make difficult to even conceive of how his theory could be "credible." How much evidence exists for an "arbitrary" claim that is NOT supported by the empirical record and which is otherwise so "implausible" as to be "inconceivable?" Looking at it from the other side, in such a case the "evidence" against such a claim exists on virtually every street corner. Yet you refuse to give any credence to it, Eric. I wonder why?

 

[billyshelby]

Meese said this: "...[Judge Walker found] that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record." I realize that Meese's entire statement was referring to a wide variety of alleged facts, not just those pertaining to the putative irrelevance of parental gender. But that is what our discussion has been about. I broke those down separately, and it was only this last claim that we have been discussing since that post.

It takes virtually nothing from Meese to refute this. All he has to show is that there is *some* (however slight) doubt about the claimed irrelevancy of gender. Such doubt need not be in any way related to children raised by same-sex "couples," but it can be. Your statement above was in response to mine, citing the study of Stacy and Biblarz, so let's just look at that alone for a second. Make no mistake about it, both of these researchers are homosexual and both are strong advocates of same-sex marriage. Even so, while noting that "it is the claim that the gender mix of parents has no effect on their children’s gender behavior, interests, or development that cries out for sociological explanation," they say:

"Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sexuality of children reared by lesbigay parents and those raised by nongay parents—but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents"

In other words, "virtually all of the published research" offers up the "implausible" as being the actual case, without even a semblance of "credible theory" to explain such an implausibility. This may well be what Meese had in mind when referring to what "common sense" tells us, with or without the assistance of psychologists with a social agenda they wish to implement. Stacy and Biblarz continue:

"In fact, the only “theory” of child development we can imagine in which a child’s sexual development would bear no relationship to parental genes, practices, environment, or beliefs would be an arbitrary one. Yet this is precisely the outcome that most scholars report, although the limited empirical record does not justify it." Although I did not quote it all, they first looked at conceivable expectations generated by (1) biological determinist theory, (2) social constructionist theory, (3) psychoanalytic theory and/or (4) J. Harris’s (1998) maverick theory, all of which they say would predict relevant differences, before making this second statement.

Once again they clearly state that the "empirical record" does not justify the "arbitrary" theory of child development which Walker said was "beyond doubt." That after having already said that it was so "implausible" as to make difficult to even conceive of how his theory could be "credible." How much evidence exists for an "arbitrary" claim that is NOT supported by the empirical record and which is otherwise so "implausible" as to be "inconceivable?" Looking at it from the other side, in such a case the "evidence" against such a claim exists on virtually every street corner. Yet you refuse to give any credence to it, Eric. I wonder why?

Aint, you're quoting Meese as if Meese is quoting Walker. In reality, Meese is characterizing what walker said (and I would argue embellishing). You won't actually find language like 'beyond any doubt' in his 'Findings of Fact.' What I believe Meese is referring to is Finding 70 in which Walker states: "Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology." "Beyond Serious Debate" is completely different than "Beyond Any Doubt." I'm sure Meese knows that, and I'm sure Meese knows the power of the pen.

You should probably not be constructing arguments off he said/she said accounts. You can find Walker's Findings of Fact pretty easily. The first 41 basically traverse the legal history of marriage narrowing into issues specific to California. 42 - 80 relate specifically to Same Sex issues. Each Finding is then supported by citations from the trial. Prior to the Findings, Walker discusses the studies he was presented and his rationale for accepting or excluding them from his Findings. You should note this introductory paragraph to the Findings:

Having considered the evidence presented at trial, the
credibility of the witnesses and the legal arguments presented by
counsel, the court now makes the following findings of fact
pursuant to FRCP 52(a). The court relies primarily on the
testimony and exhibits cited herein, although uncited cumulative
documentary evidence in the record and considered by the court also
supports the findings.

"Primarily" on what is presented, although "uncited cumulative" is considered. You could probably also have guessed that Walker isn't such an idiot that he would have written his findings in such a way as to have them laughably bounced out of a higher court. When you read the 80 findings in sum, he builds gradually and arguably convincingly to the evolution of marriage law, and how it has now deviated to exclude the Plaintiffs in discriminatory fashion. Others will disagree, but you should be disagreeing based on what he actually said, not op-ed spin. I'm not making a comment on the law, or the splitting of legal hairs as to what constitutes 'Findings of Fact' or where he may have overstepped his bounds.

 

[One Brow]

Everything you don't know, which, unfortunately is a LOT (a LOT for me too) means nothing to you, Eric, so what? I don't choose to deny the existence of something (a fire goin on down the street) I am told about, just because I aint been down there myself yet. You seem to have no such constraints on your denials, though.

Hopper, you are welcome to believe the any pronouncement by any person you cotton to, and I have no problem with that. But if you expect me to believe in the invisible, intangible dragon in your garage, I'll need to see some proof it exists. Meese's evidence of chidren suffering from having homosexual parents is not the same as a fire down the street.

Sure. That why Spitzer paper was denounced by the APA, and that's why the president claimed, according to Biley, at least, that Spitzer's findings were "unworthy of publication." "A homo opposes it, therefore it's unfit falsehood" seems to be the criterion here.

I have no doubt you really see it that way. However, since I have never seen the APA say 'it is impossible for any person at any time to change their orientation to any degree at all', or words to that effect, I don't see them having an issue with the bare facts of Spitzer's study, just what many groups are claiming the results mean.

Go there yourself sometime...I'm not that familiar with it, but I consistently see them reporting (and not interrupting with comment) the findings of opposing groups, such as the claim that children of gay couples are much better adjusted than those of heterosexual couples. They faithfully report the positions and position statements of the APA. Of course this includes what seem to be the perennial attempts by the powerful gay lobby in the APA to "outlaw" reparative therapy--which they haven't quite been able to accomplish notwithstanding their "full court press."

I have been there, and seen that such reports and position are typically followed with disapproving commentary and gflowing recommendations on how their work is truly effective (even though there is no evidence for this).

Eric, are you just deliberately trying to insult me and my intelligence by acting as though I more stupid than a box of rocks? Or do you, God forbid, pose this as a "serious" question?

Your intelligence? Not at all. Lots of seriously intelligent people believe in ridicuous things. However, taking offense is a good way to avoid answering a question.

I have no further comment on this witch-inhabited, unprofessional blog, eh, Eric?

I suppose that's also a good way of avoiding the issues of the Exodus study and the Schroeder & Shidlo study: pretend that the blog you saw them on is the problem.

I think your (1) thoughtless citation of it and (2) subsequent defense of it's ridiculous methodology, tells me all I need to know about why it was published to begin with (there's one born every minute, according to Barnum). Anyone interested in their methods and conclusions can go there, read it themselves, and form their own criticisms or whole-hearted approval of the contents, as they see fit.

So sense in confronting evidence when you can pretend it doesn't matter due to the source, eh?

Heh...

Meese said this: "...[Judge Walker found] that it is beyond ... I realize that Meese's entire statement was referring to a wide variety of alleged facts, not just those pertaining to the putative irrelevance of parental gender. But that is what our discussion has been about. I broke those down separately, and it was only this last claim that we have been discussing since that post.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision.

As I made clear, I was looking for the justificaton of "substantial evidence". I'm not qualified to say whether any prior Supreme court case is binding or not, and "plain common sense" just means "Meese's personal opinion on what makes sense". Substantial evidence is something I can at least look at and evaluate, when there is some. If you thought I was discussing something else, I have no explanation for that.

In other words, "virtually all of the published research" offers up the "implausible" as being the actual case, without even a semblance of "credible theory" to explain such an implausibility. ... Looking at it from the other side, in such a case the "evidence" against such a claim exists on virtually every street corner. Yet you refuse to give any credence to it, Eric. I wonder why?

Actually, I've already made a couple of statements in this thread that Walker's opinion may have gone too far in stating there was no connection. I'm still waiting to see if you can produce Meese's substantial evidence.

 

[Hopper]

Aint, you're quoting Meese as if Meese is quoting Walker. In reality, Meese is characterizing what walker said (and I would argue embellishing). You won't actually find language like 'beyond any doubt' in his 'Findings of Fact.' What I believe Meese is referring to is Finding 70 in which Walker states: "Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology." "Beyond Serious Debate" is completely different than "Beyond Any Doubt"...Others will disagree, but you should be disagreeing based on what he actually said, not op-ed spin. I'm not making a comment on the law, or the splitting of legal hairs as to what constitutes 'Findings of Fact' or where he may have overstepped his bounds.

Congratulations on a thoughtful, informed analysis which doesn't go over the top with prejudical characterizations, etc., Biley. I haven't searched the opinion for this particular language, but it appears you have. Since I'm way too lazy to go to the effort to double check your work, I will accept it as accurate. I will grant you that "beyond serious debate," while being a very strong claim, is different from, and not as strong as, a claim of "beyond any doubt."

I also agree that his opinion should be analyzed for what it actually says, NOT what someone else erroneously says it says. So let's do that. Although the language is different, substituting "beyond serious debate" as a proposition of FACT, would be no more supportable that the phrase "beyond any doubt" in this case, although it could make a significant difference in other cases (where there was, in fact, no "serious debate").

 

[Hopper]

Eric, are you just deliberately trying to insult me and my intelligence by acting as though I more stupid than a box of rocks? Or do you, God forbid, pose this as a "serious" question?

Your intelligence? Not at all. Lots of seriously intelligent people believe in ridicuous things. However, taking offense is a good way to avoid answering a question.

OK, Eric, you want to push this, I see. And you want to do it with the snide insinuation that I believe something ridiculous and am therefore ducking the question. OK, let me be blunt then.

That is perhaps the most STUPID question I have ever heard from any person who makes any pretense to understanding science. If you call that science why not go the whole damn hog? Why not glibly claim that, since there are 6 billion people in the world, "scientific study shows that only 37 out of 6 billion reported a change?" From there, go on to claim that only 37 people in the entire world have changed, and that only 37 people are capable of changing. Then calculate your "success rate" accordingly.

Those who did not choose to participate, who did not submit to questioning, and who did not take tests designed to detect and analyze their actual status ARE NOT PART OF THE SAMPLE.

Any complete fool can understand that. Yet you appear not to. Yes, I am implying that you are a complete fool to even make such a suggestion.

You apparently have absolutely NO CONCEPTION of what sound methodology is. It just goes to prove the already apparent tendency you have to believe anything you choose to believe on whatever highly emotional grounds you choose, and to then argue that all science supports your conclusion, no matter how unscientific your purported "science" may be.

 

[billyshelby]

I have no idea what the definition of 'Fact' is relative to a 'Finding of Fact' or how it correlates to a 'Fact' of the universe. And I'm not too sure how many completely indisputable facts we have about anything. So I don't know whether legally it is 'beyond serious debate' or universally beyond serious debate. But I would say the operative word is 'serious.' If 99.5 % of the medical community disagrees (in all the multifaceted ways from studies to expert testimony, etc.) with the defendants evidence in this case, then I would say it is a statement of 'fact' that the matter is 'beyond serious debate.' Of course, that's an extreme hypothetical. To get a better idea of what Walker was looking at, or what theoretical percentage he might have arrived at, you'd have to read his opinion.

 

[moevillini]

...Since I'm way too lazy to go to the effort to double check your work....

who the hell do you think you're kidding here?


when it suits your purposes perhaps, otherwise, the evidence points to the contrary.




(and by "evidence" I refer you to a fair number of posts in this thread for example)

 

[Hopper]

Now, Mo, don't go round stackin up straw men, eh? I didn't say I was too lazy to double check any old claim made, ya know? But I am definitely not gunna go through that tedious 136 page opinion of Walker's looking for a particular word. If you wanna do it, and "confirm" Biley's claim, help yourself. Me, I'm too damn lazy for that. If lazy aint the right word, just say "disinclined." Whatever, I aint gunna do it.

 

[One Brow]

OK, Eric, you want to push this, I see. And you want to do it with the snide the insinuation that I am ducking the question. OK, let me be blunt then.

Cool.

That is perhaps the most STUPID question I have ever heard from any person who makes any pretense to understanding science. If you call that science why not go the whole damn hog? Why not glibly claim that, since there are 6 billion people in the world, "scientific study shows that only 37 out of 6 billion reported a change?"

Were all 6 billion engaging in therapy with NARTH? With only a thousand or so therapists, that doesn't leave much time for each patient. So, maybe if we were trying to estimate the rate of successful changes, we would need a rate of entry into the program.

Those who did not choose to participate, who did not submit to questioning, and who did not take tests designed to detect and analyze their actual status ARE NOT PART OF THE SAMPLE.

Correct. They were part of the population, but not of the sample.

Any complete fool can understand that. Yet you appear not to. Yes, I am implying that you are a complete fool to even make such a suggestion.

You seem to have missed my point.

You apparently have absolutely NO CONCEPTION of what sound methodology is.

Are you saying the selection of the 200 individuals in the Spitzer study exhibits sound sample selection methodology, or is this just some generic insult designed to divert my attention? Because, to be clear, I don't really care what your opinion is of my overall knowledge of sound methodology is. I'm much more interested in whether you are willing to defend the sampling process of the Spizter study as sound methodology. Bold declarations about my knowledge, or lack thereof, will not change the soundness of the selection process in the Spitzer study, nor will they disturb me to the point that I forget the issue.

It just goes to prove the already apparent tendency you have to believe anything you choose to believe on whatever highly emotional grounds you choose, and to then argue that all science supports your conclusion, no matter how unscientific your purported "science" may be.

In all your bluntness, I missed the part where you did or did not say the sampling methodology in the Spitzer study was sound. Maybe you should try being blunt *and* answering the question. Failing that, how about just answering the question?