Book with two moms returns to elementary school library

Jan 16, 2013 | Posted by: imayogi | Full story: www.proudparenting.com

The ACLU of Utah defended the book "In Our Mothers' House" by Patricia Polacco, after it was removed from the Davis School District's library shelves...
Comments
221 - 240 of 394 Comments Last updated Jan 30, 2013

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239
Jan 22, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
It only took seven years for you guys to find that CU's didn't work...
Because when something isn't working it's often evident much sooner.

If people start dying during a drug trial, you don't need to wait to stop the trial just because it would take longer to see if it actually prevented cancer as you hoped.

In this case, no news is good news.

C'mon, if there were even the SLIGHTEST indication that same-sex marriages were harmful to children or caused opposite-sex couples to suddenly get divorced, that the anti-gays wouldn't be trumpeting the news across the airwaves 24/7 on Fox News?
SLIF

Scarborough, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#240
Jan 22, 2013
 
I came across an old book in the bookstore.It was from the 1980s,under the straight parenting section,Toxic Parents.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#241
Jan 23, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Not every study is about the general population, dolt head. Sheesh! If you are investigating an hypothesis about frogs, you don't study plastic furniture. You really are in over your head here. I can tell by your post that you don't have the faintest clue. Using only "highly educated lesbians?".... using them to represent what? The general population? You make me laugh out loud.
lets do it this way, parade out a study, and i will tell you how the hand picking was BIAS...
many of the studies used ONLY lesbians that had college degrees or higher...
MOST of the studies excluded gay people who abandoned their child...
yes, your studies have all the same flaws as the others...

and many of them are based on the fact that the "SELF REPORTING" samples were hand picked....

of course to study lesbians, you must pick lesbians, but you pick lesbians RANDOMLY...

"The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study including the nonrandom and non-representative sample of lesbian couples, their inability to control for race/ethnicity and region (all are from metro areas on the coasts), but they can still conclude that the children are superior.
The study is based on interviews of the lesbian couples and the children, and questionnaires they filled out. Their self-interest in good study results cannot be ignored."

"Until now, most studies have suggested there are no significant behavioral, psychological or sexual differences between children raised by gay parents and those in heterosexual households. The studies are often invoked to erase fears about the developmental health and well-being of children raised by gay parents.
But in their examination of 21 studies conducted between 1981 and 1998 on the affects of gay and lesbian parenting on child development, Stacey and Biblarz say this conventional wisdom is wrong and they "challenge the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all."
For example, one 1996 study concluded that "The majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual in adulthood." Stacey and Biblarz say the finding is "technically accurate" but it "deflects analytic attention from the rather sizable differences in sexual atitudes and behaviors that the study actually reports."
Claiming that "few respectable scholars today oppose [same-sex] parenting," Stacey and Biblarz suggest that most scholars fear that highlighting the differences will be used by opponents of homosexual parenting and marriage to oppose gay adoption and gay marriage.

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."

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."

The 'Politicization' of Research
David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ainít Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the political spectrum.

Face it, your studies are as much a pile of junk as regenrus'...
and please note, I am merely applying the same critiques CONSISTENTLY...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#242
Jan 23, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>If you wish to draw conclusions about white people, it would behoove you to hand pick only white people.
and if you chose to pick them from HARVARD, or jail, will matter!

or are you suggesting it wouldn't affect the results in most cases?

so the best thing would be to pick random white people in most cases?

OH and don't forget about the self reporting crap...

I don't know what you did for GE, but it was clearly not science based...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#243
Jan 23, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because when something isn't working it's often evident much sooner.
?
not when the major flaw was that the population didn't know what they were as compared to marriage...
most of the other flaws are still applicable due to fedreral recognition or lack thereof (for now)...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#244
Jan 23, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

C'mon, if there were even the SLIGHTEST indication that same-sex marriages were harmful to children or caused opposite-sex couples to suddenly get divorced, that the anti-gays wouldn't be trumpeting the news across the airwaves 24/7 on Fox News?
what happened to regenerus?
crudicified for having the same flaws as all the studies you trumpet?
don't forget the powerful forces at work on both sides...
no one is interested in fact...

and also, don't forget the argument is that gay PARENTS are not optimum, not that they are "harmful"...

that is again, the negative implication. as if saying zep rules means the who sucks...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
what happened to regenerus?
crudicified for having the same flaws as all the studies you trumpet?
don't forget the powerful forces at work on both sides...
no one is interested in fact...
and also, don't forget the argument is that gay PARENTS are not optimum, not that they are "harmful"...
that is again, the negative implication. as if saying zep rules means the who sucks...
His study was discredited by all (including himself) because it didn't deal with married same-sex couples but rather the possible effects of infidelity on children. What would have been interesting was if he had included opposite-sex infidelity in his study for a direct comparision.

To prove something is "optimum" you need to demonstrate a a clear benefit for that status and/or a deleterious effect for all other statuses. Even IF you could prove opposite-sex married couples raising their own biological children to be the "optimum" for parenting, you would still need to demonstrate what harm comes from encouraging those who will never be that ideal from responsible parenting.

Should we not encourage opposite-sex couples to adopt, even though the child won't be raised by their own biological parents which may be the "optimum"?

Should we not encourage single people from adopting, even though they would not meet the "optimum".

Should we not encourage single women who choose to get pregnant to provide a safe loving home for their own child rather than abortit or abandon it by giving certain rights & benefits like tax credits, even though she won't be raising the child in the "optimum" family setting.

Gays & lesbians WILL form families even if we attempted to make it illegal. There is simply no reason not to encourage those who choose to become parents anyways from raising their children in the most responsible manner by enouraging them to marry.

One does not negate the other.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
what happened to regenerus?
crudicified for having the same flaws as all the studies you trumpet?
don't forget the powerful forces at work on both sides...
no one is interested in fact...
.........
Actually, most people ARE interested in facts, that's why his "study" was so quickly discredited. You only need to read the study yourself and see what criteria he used, to see that the conclusions were not valid.

All of this stuff, and a great many "dissections" of the data from pro and con sources, are available with a click of the mouse.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
lets do it this way, parade out a study, and i will tell you how the hand picking was BIAS...
.....
Can you provide ANY study that compares large numbers of children raised by stable married straight parents, with the kids raised by stable married gay parents.

That's what you would need to prove that gay couples aren't as likely to raise well adjusted healthy kids.

Do you have ANY study that shows that?

NO ONE will every make the claim that straight couples can't make wonderful parents. Why the need to prove that gay couples can't exhibit the same successful parenting skills?

Good Grief! Where so you think we learned them from? And hopefully, our children will learn them from us, and pass them on to THEIR children.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
lets do it this way, parade out a study, and i will tell you how the hand picking was BIAS...
many of the studies used ONLY lesbians that had college degrees or higher...
MOST of the studies excluded gay people who abandoned their child...
yes, your studies have all the same flaws as the others...
and many of them are based on the fact that the "SELF REPORTING" samples were hand picked....
of course to study lesbians, you must pick lesbians, but you pick lesbians RANDOMLY...
"The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study including the nonrandom and non-representative sample of lesbian couples, their inability to control for race/ethnicity and region (all are from metro areas on the coasts), but they can still conclude that the children are superior.
The study is based on interviews of the lesbian couples and the children, and questionnaires they filled out. Their self-interest in good study results cannot be ignored."
"Until now, most studies have suggested there are no significant behavioral, psychological or sexual differences between children raised by gay parents and those in heterosexual households. The studies are often invoked to erase fears about the developmental health and well-being of children raised by gay parents.
But in their examination of 21 studies conducted between 1981 and 1998 on the affects of gay and lesbian parenting on child development, Stacey and Biblarz say this conventional wisdom is wrong and they "challenge the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all."
For example, one 1996 study concluded that "The majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual in adulthood." Stacey and Biblarz say the finding is "technically accurate" but it "deflects analytic attention from the rather sizable differences in sexual atitudes and behaviors that the study actually reports."
Claiming that "few respectable scholars today oppose [same-sex] parenting," Stacey and Biblarz suggest that most scholars fear that highlighting the differences will be used by opponents of homosexual parenting and marriage to oppose gay adoption and gay marriage.
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."
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."
The 'Politicization' of Research
David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ainít Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the political spectrum.
Face it, your studies are as much a pile of junk as regenrus'...
and please note, I am merely applying the same critiques CONSISTENTLY...
Exactly how does one randomly pick lesbians?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Jan 23, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
His study was discredited by all (including himself) because it didn't deal with married same-sex couples
These same criticisms are equally applicable to the studies on which you would rely...
the same flaw in sample groups, the same lack of married gays...
I would be interested in the data they release in VT about the last 4 years...just how many gays married and how many had families and how many divorces etc...
why don't you think that data is available yet, given we are looking for "facts" (yes, I am being a little sarcastic)
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Should we not encourage opposite-sex couples to adopt, even though the child won't be raised by their own biological parents which may be the "optimum"?
Should we not encourage single people from adopting, even though they would not meet the "optimum".

we are talking about kids with NO parents...
would you take $10 a week in pay?
yes, if you were currently making zero...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Gays & lesbians WILL form families even if we attempted to make it illegal.
who is talking "illegal"?
far from it, I am only saying we use marriage to declare straight relationships to be "optimum".
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Jan 23, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly how does one randomly pick lesbians?
ask a lesbian?
kidding...

you amass a group and then randomly select within that group?

GE?

you must be lying you fraud...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Jan 23, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, most people ARE interested in facts, that's why his "study" was so quickly discredited. You only need to read the study yourself and see what criteria he used, to see that the conclusions were not valid.
All of this stuff, and a great many "dissections" of the data from pro and con sources, are available with a click of the mouse.
righto, now just grasp that all those same flaws are evident in any study on which you would rely...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and if you chose to pick them from HARVARD, or jail, will matter!
or are you suggesting it wouldn't affect the results in most cases?
so the best thing would be to pick random white people in most cases?
OH and don't forget about the self reporting crap...
I don't know what you did for GE, but it was clearly not science based...
pick random white people? That's very different from a random general population, isn't it? Thank you for making my point.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Jan 23, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you provide ANY study that compares large numbers of children raised by stable married straight parents, with the kids raised by stable married gay parents.
can you?

you do get that you also cannot "prove your case", right?

And no, I don't have the burden of showing you are not the same, the gender difference alone does that...
you have the burden of showing that basing the exclusion on gender difference is not rational...
and to do so, you have to prove the opposite...
and here you kinda admit you cannot...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
These same criticisms are equally applicable to the studies on which you would rely...
the same flaw in sample groups, the same lack of married gays...
I would be interested in the data they release in VT about the last 4 years...just how many gays married and how many had families and how many divorces etc...
why don't you think that data is available yet, given we are looking for "facts" (yes, I am being a little sarcastic)
<quoted text>
we are talking about kids with NO parents...
would you take $10 a week in pay?
yes, if you were currently making zero...
<quoted text>
who is talking "illegal"?
far from it, I am only saying we use marriage to declare straight relationships to be "optimum".
I would be interested in seeing the VT data as well.

You can't declare something to be optimum without comparative evidence. While there IS evidence 2 parents in a committed relationship is generally better than 1 parent or even co-parenting by otherwise related adults, there is no such evidence that it is better when those 2 are the married opposite-sex biological parents as compared to the married same-sex parents.

Even IF the married mom/dad biological family IS determined to be "optimum", there are still valid reasons to encourage those who don't meet that optimum to marry.

Encouraging one group to marry for one reason and another group to marry for a different reason doesn't negate either.

I get it; YOU think society should only encourage marriage between opposite-sex couples, while same-sex couples should only be encouraged to get civil unions. That's your choice.

The problem is you have yet to demonstrate WHY society shouldn't encourage same-sex couples to marry. HOW does society encouraging same-sex couples to marry have any effect on the legitimate purpose of encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry?

There CAN be separate (though related) reasons to encourage BOTH groups to marry, and one does not negate the other.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<far from it, I am only saying we use marriage to declare straight relationships to be "optimum".
Nothing is stopping you from using marriage to declare straight relationships to be "optimum" while also using marriage to encourage same-sex couples to marry.

You CAN use a civil government institution for more than one purpose.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Jan 23, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
ask a lesbian?
kidding...
you amass a group and then randomly select within that group?
GE?
you must be lying you fraud...
Amass a group of lesbians? How does one do that without relying on self reporting? OOoopppps.....

GE? Yep.... 25 years! I have the gold watch and everything....
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
Jan 23, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>pick random white people? That's very different from a random general population, isn't it? Thank you for making my point.
your word games are just silly...

in the end, you suggested that hand picked groups do not create a bias, and you are wrong.

what job did you do for GE?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
Jan 23, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is stopping you from using marriage to declare straight relationships to be "optimum" while also using marriage to encourage same-sex couples to marry.
actually it does...
this is like subsidizing solar over oil, and then giving oil the identical subsidy...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••