So gay!!!

[Hopper]

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.'

No, Biley, I don't think the modifier "serious" here has anything to do with a quantiative analysis. 99% of professionals may not address the question one way or the other. On the other hand the Stacy study, standing alone, would establsh the existence of "serious debate." It is not frivolous or incompetent debate. It is serious debate.

 

[billyshelby]

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.

Here's a link with just the 'Findings' as they appear in the opinion. For the citations, you would have to look at the actual opinion. And this link excludes the previous 41 that document general marriage law. It takes about 5 minutes to read.

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/prop-8-findings-of-fact/

 

[Hopper]

Eric, I'm simply saying that 200 is NOT 100,000. I'm not gunna argue with you about that. Try to take it somewhere else.

 

[billyshelby]

No, Biley, I don't think the modifier "serious" here has anything to do with a quantiative analysis. 99% of professionals may not address the question one way or the other. On the other hand the Stacy study, standing alone, would establsh the existence of "serious debate." It is not frivolous or incompetent debate. It is serious debated.

I haven't read the Stacey study, but I think it is being mischaracterized. First, it was lauded by the gay community. Second, it didn't seek to fully discredit the studies that have been performed. In fact, a great deal of it relates to her 'findings' as to their collective 'findings' (why address that if the studies don't have some concrete worth?) Third, she actually draws conclusions within it that children of gay couples may be emotionally stronger than children of heterosexual couples, and her particular focus seems to have been about not shying away from the ways those children are 'different,' not necessarily better or worse.

I'm sure you will now pull the quotes you like from it as evidence all the studies it analyzed were worthless. But I think the meaning or findings of the study is a bit more complex than the sound bytes. Stacey herself has said that it was widely misappropriated by NARTH and the right to mean what it didn't. There's a video interview of her talking about it. I'll find the link later if you care.

 

[Hopper]

I haven't read the Stacey study, but I think it is being mischaracterized.

Just keep on thinkin right ahead then, just like Eric, eh, Biley? If you ever read it, you can definitely show me exactly where I have misquoted anything said in it, if I have in fact done so. You could also read the Slate article (link above), also written by a woman who favors gay marriage, to get an idea of how others summarize it.

 

[billyshelby]

Just keep on thinkin right ahead then, just like Eric, eh, Biley? If you ever read it, you can definitely show me exactly where I have misquoted anything said in it, if I have in fact done so. You could also read the Slate article (link above), also written by a woman who favors gay marriage, to get an idea of how others summarize it.

I didn't say you misquoted anything. I said you're probably pulling quotes out of context (as Stacey herself has indicated has occurred.) As I said, this study was lauded in the gay community. Why would they be excited about a study that 'proved' every other study on gay families was worthless? To simplify it even more, the gist I get from Stacey herself is that the studies are insufficient as undeniable proof. She's pushing for more detailed, comprehensive study to provide that proof. And the response from the gay community seems to be similar--they WANT better studies and don't want to rest on what they have.

If you really wanted to get a better idea of the meaning of the study, you could do that by looking up responses to it. But that would introduce nuance to the argument, and it's better for your 'case' to rest on the laurels of the quotes that "prove" your point.

 

[Hopper]

Biley, I was quoting her for one specific purpose, and I made that clear. The purpose was to see how, and in what way, her study would undercut Walker's claim that there is no "serious debate." If I understand her right, she thinks the existing studies have misrepresented the actual facts. She doesn't claim that this is tantamount to lying, just a consequence of the perceived need to "find" no differences in child development in heterosexual versus homosexual couples. She says the very studies which purport to find "no differences" do in fact, themselves, find significant differences. One such difference is the sexual orientation and behavior of the children. Of course she sees the higher incidence of "homoerotic" desires in children to be a GOOD thing. But she doesn't claim, as the studies' authors do, that there are 'no differences" or that parental gender is "irrelevant" to the question.

 

[Hopper]

Stacy and Biblarz:

"the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claim to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes. In contrast, our careful scrutiny of the findings they report suggests that on some dimensions—particularly those related to gender and sexuality—the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."

An example:

"Consider, for example, the study by R. Green et al. (1986) that, by our count, finds at least 15 intriguing, statistically significant differences in gender behavior and preferences
among children (4 among boys and 11 among girls) in lesbian and heterosexual
single-mother homes. Yet the study’s abstract summarizes: “Two types of single-parent
households [lesbian and heterosexual mothers] and their effects on children ages
3–11 years were compared. . . . No significant differences were found between the two
types of households for boys and few significant differences for girls” (p. 167)"

 

[One Brow]

Eric, I'm simply saying that 200 is NOT 100,000. I'm not gunna argue with you about that. Try to take it somewhere else.

I congratulate you on your numeracy.

 

[billyshelby]

Biley, I was quoting her for one specific purpose, and I made that clear. The purpose was to see how, and in what way, her study would undercut Walker's claim that there is no "serious debate." If I understand her right, she thinks the existing studies have misrepresented the actual facts. She doesn't claim that this is tantamount to lying, just a consequence of the perceived need to "find" no differences in child development in heterosexual versus homosexual couples. She says the very studies which purport to find "no differences" do in fact, themselves, find significant differences. One such difference is the sexual orientation and behavior of the children. Of course she sees the higher incidence of "homoerotic" desires in children to be a GOOD thing. But she doesn't claim, as the studies' authors do, that there are 'no differences" or that parental gender is "irrelevant" to the question.

We can probably (hopefully) conclude Walker read the study right? Not just those quotes? In the context of the full study, he might have very accurately concluded his statement of fact, that there is 'no serious debate' that children raised by either homosexual or heterosexual parents are "as likely" to be "healthy, successful, and well adjusted" was just that--a fact by whatever definition applies to a 'Finding of Fact.' But of course, that study is presumably one of many he consulted to arrive at that finding of fact and weighed in whatever measure Walker felt appropriate. It seems that you want to find any type of doubt or contrary finding and then conclude that by virtue of its existence the legal factual finding is not 'beyond serious debate.' Maybe the appeal will see it your way. But they'll be looking at Walker's citations and his larger argument which, as I've said, you could do as well.

 

[Hopper]

I congratulate you on your numeracy.

Eric, you have, in the past, claimed to teach statistics at the college level. I would suggest you take your argument about how 200 becomes 100,000 to your colleagues on the stat staff and see what they tell you.

 

[Hopper]

Maybe the appeal will see it your way. But they'll be looking at Walker's citations and his larger argument which, as I've said, you could do as well.

Maybe the appellate court will simply look at the legal standards that apply, as did the appellate court in the Florida case, whose commentary I have already quoted. Here's a part I did not quote:



III. CONCLUSION

"We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood. See Reno, supra; Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 281 (1984). The State of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who "engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity," Cox, supra, and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment. Thus, any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law. The legislature is the proper forum for this debate, and we do not sit as a superlegislature "to award by judicial decree what was not achievable by political consensus." Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 923 (4th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED."

The gay advocates seem to want the courts to act as a "superlegislature" and grant them what they could not achieve by political consensus. Unfortunately for them, that aint the court's job.

Once again: " any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law." You and I can argue about what is best, correct, wise, or fair until the cows come home. That said, those questions are not even at issue in the appellate court.