Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#145907 Jun 13, 2012
Problem #4: This Study Makes The Wrong Comparison.
When you look at the data, the study’s real findings become obvious. Children of parents who have had a same-sex relationship — a group that includes very large numbers of children of divorced parents, single parents, adopted parents, step-parents and “other” family structures — have developmental outcomes which are remarkably similar to children of divorced, single, adopted, step-, and “other” family structures overall when compared to intact, non-adoptive heterosexual families. Regnerus designed his study to show this result by constructing samples which mimicked these characteristics. By constructing his LM and GF samples the way he did, the only legitimate comparison he could make would be to children of divorced, single, adopted, step-, and “other” family structures. But that’s not the comparison he made. He focused the study on making the wrong comparison, and then concluded that children of gay and lesbian parents have more negative outcomes than children of straight parents in intact households.

But his conclusion is as illegitimate as his comparison, and his comparison is as illegitimate as his samples. Instead of making an apples to apples comparison, he compared apples to elephants and concluded that there was a difference. To which anyone with a minimal understanding of design of experiments would answer, Duh!

But when you make the right comparison — compare children of divorced gay parents to children of divorced straight parents, compare children of single gay parents to children of single straight parents, compare children of long-term committed gay parents to children of long-term straight parents — there is nothing in this study to suggest that children of gay parents are at any disadvantage whatsoever to children of straight parents. And when you make the right comparison, the study goes much further toward confirming that conclusion than the one Regnerus arrives at.

CONTINUED
Winston Smith

United States

#145908 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't notice you concerned about those in other studies of this type, what changed????
Smile.
I just knew you would be dim enough to go there. The other study you're talking about was the one about step parents killing their step children. No gay families were considered in that one dumdum. OTOH, this study evaluates the well outcome for the children of gay couples and in the conclusion you posted only compared them to heterosexual couples who had not split.

Furthermore, the study was limited to couples from a time period when gay marriage wasn't allowed anywhere. The dynamics of a cohabitating couple are much different from those of a married couple. So the study is further flawed in that light. Slate covers the rest of the flaws, namely the household that CREATED those children and the ramifications of gay people attempting to fit in a society that frowned upon them by living as heterosexuals.

If you wanted as close a study as possible you'd compare sterile couples who used adoption, AI, surrogates, and similar methods to have offspring. All these methods are reasonably equal for gay vs straight couples apart from the artificially induced social stigma created by those who condemn homosexuals simply for being homosexual.

I can see, given the fact that your "training" as a life coach is limited to being able to dole out attaboys, that you would miss out on salient details like this. You really aren't in possession of any semblance of an analytic mind.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145909 Jun 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
After much searching you have been able to find one study that cannot stand for a single day before being called into question for its methods, data, and conclusions.
What is more, you seem to dim to notice that it is irrelevant as the state does not take an interest in children being raised by two opposite sex biological parents. Although this has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions, with examples, you seem to dim to understand it.
Feel free to indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. This doesn’t begin to hack it.
by the way lides, if three are a burden, then two are too. Why the discrimination?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#145910 Jun 13, 2012
A Final Note
I made a brief mention of the huge amount of money that was spent on this study, a sum that comes to $785,000. The lion’s share came from the Witherspoon Institute, a think tank in Princeton, New Jersey (and not affiliated with Princeton University). Members of the Institute include Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and whose recent paper in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on same-sex marriage was critiqued at length by BTB’s Rob Tisinai. The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study. The Bradley Foundation is considered one of the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundations, although its contribution to this study is “only”$90,000.

I mention this because it is important, but I don’t want to over play its importance. All sorts of studies are funded by all sorts of institutions which support a variety of causes. Those sources can come from conservative, anti-gay organizations, or (as is the case with many studies which are favorable to LGBT issues) they can come from pro-gay sources such as the Williams Institute or other organizations. The source of funding can indicate a potential conflict of interest, but the true value of a study rests on the methodology of the study itself. If the methodology is sound, then the study’s conclusions are sound regardless of where the money comes from or who’s doing it. But where the methodology fails, the broken link affects the entire chain. While there are many grounds in which to attack this study, the only legitimate way to critique it is to examine the methodology, as I have done here.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/4...
Winston Smith

United States

#145911 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrar, there are hundreds of studies available that show exactly the same thing.
Hundreds? Really? Links please, so the flaws can be waved in your face since you're too dim to find them yourself.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145912 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
On the contrar, there are hundreds of studies available that show exactly the same thing.
Even if you could cite such studies, and you cannot because they do not exist, they are irrelevant. The government does not intervene (i.e. take children out of a home) except in extreme cases regarding parenting. What is more single parents and even homosexuals are allowed to adopt in most jurisdictions.

Making these arguments is nothing more than an emotional smoke screen and an inept attempt to polarize the issue with irrelevant rhetoric.
KiMare wrote:
While gays demand that we pretend gay unions are exactly the same as marriage, they refuse to accept that gay 'families' are therefor the same too, and demand segregated studies. Go figure...
They are entitle to equal protection of the laws as persons.(Look at the 14th Amendment). Nothing you have said negates this simple fact. Much that you have said makes you look as though you are avoiding addressing the topic directly or making a direct and valid argument.

Personally, I don't think you are capable of doing so.

Keep to your obfuscations, they show your true colors, and indicate that you ahve no valid argument for your position.

Your current study merely underscores your desperation.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145913 Jun 13, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
A Final Note
I made a brief mention of the huge amount of money that was spent on this study, a sum that comes to $785,000. The lion’s share came from the Witherspoon Institute, a think tank in Princeton, New Jersey (and not affiliated with Princeton University). Members of the Institute include Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and whose recent paper in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on same-sex marriage was critiqued at length by BTB’s Rob Tisinai. The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study. The Bradley Foundation is considered one of the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundations, although its contribution to this study is “only”$90,000.
I mention this because it is important, but I don’t want to over play its importance. All sorts of studies are funded by all sorts of institutions which support a variety of causes. Those sources can come from conservative, anti-gay organizations, or (as is the case with many studies which are favorable to LGBT issues) they can come from pro-gay sources such as the Williams Institute or other organizations. The source of funding can indicate a potential conflict of interest, but the true value of a study rests on the methodology of the study itself. If the methodology is sound, then the study’s conclusions are sound regardless of where the money comes from or who’s doing it. But where the methodology fails, the broken link affects the entire chain. While there are many grounds in which to attack this study, the only legitimate way to critique it is to examine the methodology, as I have done here.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/4...
The bottom line?

There is not a more broad based, inclusive study in existence. It easily surpasses any other study comparing hetro/homo child raising.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145914 Jun 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you could cite such studies, and you cannot because they do not exist, they are irrelevant. The government does not intervene (i.e. take children out of a home) except in extreme cases regarding parenting. What is more single parents and even homosexuals are allowed to adopt in most jurisdictions.
Making these arguments is nothing more than an emotional smoke screen and an inept attempt to polarize the issue with irrelevant rhetoric.
<quoted text>
They are entitle to equal protection of the laws as persons.(Look at the 14th Amendment). Nothing you have said negates this simple fact. Much that you have said makes you look as though you are avoiding addressing the topic directly or making a direct and valid argument.
Personally, I don't think you are capable of doing so.
Keep to your obfuscations, they show your true colors, and indicate that you ahve no valid argument for your position.
Your current study merely underscores your desperation.
Digging in with that gay twirl, but the sweats showing lides...

Smile.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145916 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Digging in with that gay twirl, but the sweats showing lides...
Smile.
And Ki Mare retreats further from even so much as attempting to make a valid point.

Feel free to indicate that legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Posts like your last one only serve to prove that you can't deliver a valid argument for your position.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#145917 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Digging in with that gay twirl, but the sweats showing lides...
Smile.
This article shows the flaws of the study and why:
http://www.edgephiladelphia.com/index.php...

“'It's A Brave New World"”

Since: Sep 11

Carmel California

#145918 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Digging in with that gay twirl, but the sweats showing lides...
Smile.
I think you forgot your dose of Lithium today! Perhaps you should take it now as you're making yourself to look like thetotal and complete Fool! How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter before you simply STFU and quit while you're behind? Jesus buddy,thick as a brick! LOL

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#145919 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
The bottom line?
There is not a more broad based, inclusive study in existence. It easily surpasses any other study comparing hetro/homo child raising.
Let's just pretend that it isn't an incredibly flawed study written by a researcher setting out to prove that Lesbians and Gays aren't good parents, let's ignore ALL the evidence of just how bad of a study it actually is. If you want to hang onto your delusion, knock yourself out, but don't get huffy when we don't buy into your fantasy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145920 Jun 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And Ki Mare retreats further from even so much as attempting to make a valid point.
Feel free to indicate that legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Posts like your last one only serve to prove that you can't deliver a valid argument for your position.
I responded accurately to the content of your post.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145921 Jun 13, 2012
Been There Did That wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you forgot your dose of Lithium today! Perhaps you should take it now as you're making yourself to look like thetotal and complete Fool! How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter before you simply STFU and quit while you're behind? Jesus buddy,thick as a brick! LOL
My, such a strong opinion for a newbie!

It seems like gay twirl defines your world, right?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145922 Jun 13, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
This article shows the flaws of the study and why:
http://www.edgephiladelphia.com/index.php...
I keep asking why these things weren't important on the pro gay studies, no answer yet...

However, is this one of the 'flaws' you are talking about?:

"The Study’s Sample
On that score, there is one significant strength to this study which makes it stand out. Unlike prior studies, the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is based on a national probability sampled population. This is the gold standard for all social science studies, and it’s extremely rare for a study to achieve that mark. As far as I am aware, all of the studies to date of gay and lesbian parenting use non-representative convenience samples. National probability samples, unlike convenience samples, are important because they alone can be generalized to the broader populations, to the extent that key characteristics in the design of the probability sample (demographics, etc.) match those of the general population. Convenience samples can’t do that."

Hmmm, it even mentions the other 'studies'...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#145923 Jun 13, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Let's just pretend that it isn't an incredibly flawed study written by a researcher setting out to prove that Lesbians and Gays aren't good parents, let's ignore ALL the evidence of just how bad of a study it actually is. If you want to hang onto your delusion, knock yourself out, but don't get huffy when we don't buy into your fantasy.
I guess if you base your view on one peer (gay) review...

But I don't. And I don't feel bad or 'huffy' about it.

Smile.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145924 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I responded accurately to the content of your post.
Smile.
You have tacitly admitted that your most recent arguments were utterly irrelevant, and that you lack the capacity to formulate a rational on topic argument.

Congratulations, each time you post without addressing the topic, you look all the more foolish.

How's that quest for a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional going. It kind of looks like you lack the ability to find any such interest.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#145925 Jun 13, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
A Final Note
Ok, kind of glad you are leaving. Next time write a book.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#145926 Jun 13, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Let's just pretend that it isn't an incredibly flawed study written by a researcher setting out to prove that Lesbians and Gays aren't good parents, let's ignore ALL the evidence of just how bad of a study it actually is. If you want to hang onto your delusion, knock yourself out, but don't get huffy when we don't buy into your fantasy.
Rick: or a flawed study by a researcher setting out to prove that Lesbians and Gays are good parents, let's ignore ALL the evidence. And only believe gay studies.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#145929 Jun 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I guess if you base your view on one peer (gay) review...
But I don't. And I don't feel bad or 'huffy' about it.
Smile.
No dear, you base your view on nothing more than your twisted desire to hate us. What I provided you were TWO of MANY articles that dissect the Regenerus study as the agenda driven fraud it really is. They pointed out some very serious flaws in its methodology, sampling and conclusions, flaws which you try to pretend don't exist. I know you don't feel bad about what you've said, you're a passive/aggressive sociopath, but you definitely have got huffy down pat.

Smile at that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sausalito Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 4 hr Love 21,983
Bone Spurs Crowned King of Congo Jun 11 trump4evber 1
dating website free (Sep '13) Jun 8 mason 2
hope trump is happy hes got his gang takeing sm... Jun 5 usa is violating ... 1
Trtump Did NOT Beat Melania UP Jun 4 Sgt Franq 1
Democracy to take extended vacation May 31 haras launders 1
Trump Creepy Level Grows Apr '18 soch a deeel 1

Sausalito Jobs

Personal Finance

Sausalito Mortgages