New study reveals...what we've been s...

New study reveals...what we've been stating all along...

Posted in the Christian Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1 Oct 23, 2013

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#2 Oct 23, 2013
NDanger wrote:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/ new-study-on-homosexual-parent s-tops-all-previous-research
Thanks Nick. You're right. We've been stating all along Family Research Council is a hate group.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3 Oct 23, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110...

Mark Regnerus’s “family structure” study has been a hot topic since it was released in June, namely because every single anti-gay conservative organization has cited it as evidence that same-sex couples are inferior parents. An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bullshit” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting. In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made:

REGNERUS: I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior.[...]

And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say:“Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain,“Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad.[...]

I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.

So, Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.

----------

No surprise the Family Research Council would support a liar.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#4 Oct 23, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Nick. You're right. We've been stating all along Family Research Council is a hate group.
C'mon DLai, I figured you were above that. The FRC had 'nothing' to do with the research. If you 'read' it, you would agree that it was very well written and all perspectives were laid out on the table. No smoke, no mirrors, no omitting any facts, no spin, just stats...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#5 Oct 23, 2013
Cookie_Parker wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/ 2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-ad mits-gay-parenting/
Mark Regnerus’s “family structure” study has been a hot topic since it was released in June, namely because every single anti-gay conservative organization has cited it as evidence that same-sex couples are inferior parents. An internal audit by the academic journal that originally published it found the conclusions to be “bullshit” because Regnerus’s criteria was whether a kid’s parent ever had a same-sex relationship, regardless of how long it lasted or what role in played in parenting. In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made:
REGNERUS: I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior.[...]
And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say:“Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain,“Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad.[...]
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them.
So, Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.
----------
No surprise the Family Research Council would support a liar.
Seriously? a liar? So, do you think he was paid off for his report? The last part of your paste is purely conjecture. What the writer is speculating about the families themselves. It's NOT about the families, it's about the end product. The people doing the research were open and forthcoming in all perspectives.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#6 Oct 23, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon DLai, I figured you were above that. The FRC had 'nothing' to do with the research. If you 'read' it, you would agree that it was very well written and all perspectives were laid out on the table. No smoke, no mirrors, no omitting any facts, no spin, just stats...
No data. Lots of links but no data.

"Intelligence is an inoculation against fundamentalism." With each fifteen point increase in IQ a person is half as likely to be a fundamentalist.
-- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm...
Huh

Sussex, WI

#7 Oct 24, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
No data. Lots of links but no data.
"Intelligence is an inoculation against fundamentalism." With each fifteen point increase in IQ a person is half as likely to be a fundamentalist.
-- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm...
From the same article:

"I've encountered people of great intelligence and I've encountered idiots who have a high IQ. Most people have a gift - some of them will show up in an IQ test, but not all of them will."

You must be the latter.

“Jesus is Lord”

Since: Aug 11

Greenwood, Indiana

#8 Oct 24, 2013
This thread is like the show called Dumb and Dumber. The word of God says same sex marriage will burn in hell with homosexuality. Children in a family with parents of the same sex will burn in hell just like the parents. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take a child to hell because of their own dirty sins that the parents cause?? What people have read about this is nothing but lies from the pit of hell!!

PS: Get a real life people!!
ncresident

Charlotte, NC

#9 Oct 24, 2013
praying for that disturbed li koala.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#10 Oct 24, 2013
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
This thread is like the show called Dumb and Dumber. The word of God says same sex marriage will burn in hell with homosexuality. Children in a family with parents of the same sex will burn in hell just like the parents. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take a child to hell because of their own dirty sins that the parents cause?? What people have read about this is nothing but lies from the pit of hell!!
PS: Get a real life people!!
The Bible doesn't mention Same Sex Marriage.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#11 Oct 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/ new-study-on-homosexual-parent s-tops-all-previous-research
A Russian Lawmaker Is Misusing My Gay Parenting Study
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/09...
Editor's note: Earlier this month, we wrote about how a Russian lawmaker had cited University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus's study on gay parenting as reason to strip custody rights from gay parents. Below, Regnerus, who has discussed his work and its critics at Slate last year, responds to those who would twist his findings for political and ideological purposes.
Policing the uses to which my Social Science Research article on same-sex parenting has been put would be a challenge. Groups from across the political spectrum have struggled over the meaning of its analyses, which documented a variety of differences between those young adults who grew up in a stable, biological family and those who did not—including those who reported a parental same-sex romantic relationship. One Russian lawmaker, however, apparently perceives in the study a reason for stripping some Russians of their parental rights based on knowledge of their homosexual activity.
But such a legislative move would be wrong. Why? Because the study in question, and no shortage of other analyses of population-based data, reaffirm that kinship and stability are important for children. Generating new household instability, via one-size-fits-all legislation poised to sever the parent-child bond, is to overlook these basic conclusions of the study. A comparable treatment is not, I presume, planned against heterosexual stepfamilies, regardless of the extent of the household upheaval and parental relationship drama that may or may not have generated them.
No, to suggest a policy of removing a child from a biological parent is to move well beyond the data, because the sources, or causes, of the group differences I documented are not simple to discern. And I said as much in the original text:

This may come as a surprise to those who have spent the past 15 months tagging my study as discredited or “debunked,” a silly and simplistic moniker given that the data is public and the analyses in the article are rather straightforward. Isn’t it hypocritical to blow the whistle on this use of the data while supporting other such uses, such as my own participation on an amici brief to the U.S. Supreme Court? No, it is not, because I oppose same-sex marriage and lawmaker Andrei Zhuravlyov’s draconian legislation for the same reason: every child has a mother and a father, and such kinship matters for kids. To be stably rooted in your married mother and father’s household is to foster the greatest chance at lifelong flourishing. It’s not necessary, of course. It just has the best odds.
Of course, such kinship ties are often broken, sometimes with intention (by mutual divorce, sperm donation, and some instances of surrogacy), sometimes by accident (as through the death of a parent), and sometimes by necessity (in the case of seeking protection from domestic violence), all through no fault of the child. A good society seeks to discourage broken kinship ties, and to struggle over how to manage those that are unavoidable. It does not respond by simply declaring biological bonds to be irrelevant or such brokenness only imagined.
Nor should a good society support any political project that purports to inject new instability into children’s lives by categorically stripping mothers and fathers of their rights as biological parents, as the Russian Duma is now considering.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#12 Oct 24, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
No links, nor data...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#13 Oct 24, 2013
Jammercolo wrote:
<quoted text>
A Russian Lawmaker Is Misusing My Gay Parenting Study
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/09...
Editor's note: Earlier this month, we wrote about how a Russian lawmaker had cited University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus's study on gay parenting as reason to strip custody rights from gay parents. Below, Regnerus, who has discussed his work and its critics at Slate last year, responds to those who would twist his findings for political and ideological purposes.
Policing the uses to which my Social Science Research article on same-sex parenting has been put would be a challenge. Groups from across the political spectrum have struggled over the meaning of its analyses, which documented a variety of differences between those young adults who grew up in a stable, biological family and those who did not—including those who reported a parental same-sex romantic relationship. One Russian lawmaker, however, apparently perceives in the study a reason for stripping some Russians of their parental rights based on knowledge of their homosexual activity.
But such a legislative move would be wrong. Why? Because the study in question, and no shortage of other analyses of population-based data, reaffirm that kinship and stability are important for children. Generating new household instability, via one-size-fits-all legislation poised to sever the parent-child bond, is to overlook these basic conclusions of the study. A comparable treatment is not, I presume, planned against heterosexual stepfamilies, regardless of the extent of the household upheaval and parental relationship drama that may or may not have generated them.
No, to suggest a policy of removing a child from a biological parent is to move well beyond the data, because the sources, or causes, of the group differences I documented are not simple to discern. And I said as much in the original text:
This may come as a surprise to those who have spent the past 15 months tagging my study as discredited or “debunked,” a silly and simplistic moniker given that the data is public and the analyses in the article are rather straightforward. Isn’t it hypocritical to blow the whistle on this use of the data while supporting other such uses, such as my own participation on an amici brief to the U.S. Supreme Court? No, it is not, because I oppose same-sex marriage and lawmaker Andrei Zhuravlyov’s draconian legislation for the same reason: every child has a mother and a father, and such kinship matters for kids. To be stably rooted in your married mother and father’s household is to foster the greatest chance at lifelong flourishing. It’s not necessary, of course. It just has the best odds.
Of course, such kinship ties are often broken, sometimes with intention (by mutual divorce, sperm donation, and some instances of surrogacy), sometimes by accident (as through the death of a parent), and sometimes by necessity (in the case of seeking protection from domestic violence), all through no fault of the child. A good society seeks to discourage broken kinship ties, and to struggle over how to manage those that are unavoidable. It does not respond by simply declaring biological bonds to be irrelevant or such brokenness only imagined.
Nor should a good society support any political project that purports to inject new instability into children’s lives by categorically stripping mothers and fathers of their rights as biological parents, as the Russian Duma is now considering.
Great article...
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#14 Oct 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon DLai, I figured you were above that. The FRC had 'nothing' to do with the research. If you 'read' it, you would agree that it was very well written and all perspectives were laid out on the table. No smoke, no mirrors, no omitting any facts, no spin, just stats...
Nothing to do with the research - but distribute it so people who don't read thru it, dont do a little extra leg-work, etc, can use it to promulgate their hate-opinions.

Like those who distribute ID as real science.

Okay sure...let the delusion continue, sorry to intrude.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#15 Oct 24, 2013
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
This thread is like the show called Dumb and Dumber. The word of God says same sex marriage will burn in hell with homosexuality. Children in a family with parents of the same sex will burn in hell just like the parents. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take a child to hell because of their own dirty sins that the parents cause?? What people have read about this is nothing but lies from the pit of hell!!
PS: Get a real life people!!
Better Q, why are you so F'n stupid?

More to the point; So the children do inherit the sins of their father, parents in this case! I thought that rule had passed?

How the F is a child guilty of their parents sins?

When are you gonna figure out you're a complete and total moron who makes things up on a daily basis...? When?

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#16 Oct 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article...
Why you say that? Family research council cherry picked Mark Regnerus work that you posted and Mark called them out on it and you liked it.

WTF?
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#17 Oct 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? a liar? So, do you think he was paid off for his report? The last part of your paste is purely conjecture. What the writer is speculating about the families themselves. It's NOT about the families, it's about the end product. The people doing the research were open and forthcoming in all perspectives.
Can you explain to me/us what would happen in YOUR life, to YOUR life should a minority of a minority group get the national right to marry their same-sex love interests? What's gonna happen, or what could happen to YOU!?

(anyone else who is anti-gay marriage, you are open to answer the same Q, by all means do!)

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#18 Oct 24, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
No links, nor data...
I'd call that a draw.

I figured you'd figure that out. You're not as dumb as preacherman says.

God bless you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#19 Oct 24, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
From the same article:
"I've encountered people of great intelligence and I've encountered idiots who have a high IQ. Most people have a gift - some of them will show up in an IQ test, but not all of them will."
You must be the latter.
Yeah. But Bishop Patrick Dunn is a Catholic Bishop and everyone knows Catholics are way smarter than fundies.

I think you are missing the point of the discussion. We're talking about people dumb enough to believe some dude named Methuselah actually lived 969 years.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
159: Faith and science: Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive...

God bless Bishop Dunn.

God bless you.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#20 Oct 24, 2013
ND and especially P-doucheman - where's the outrage over all the Xtian, heterosexual dead beat dads? Over men who abuse and torture their heterosexual partners and children raised in that hetero environment?

Where are those "research" papers? Where are the American Family Council on what happens to children raised in Xtian homes with hetero dads who abuse their wives and their children, or step-children!?! They outnumber the number of actual homosexual parented families by a HUGE F'n margin! And have been doing their thing for a lot longer time...so what about them? Maybe, maybe a little post-script someplace...an addendum perhaps?

Where's the outrage? Is it because You all excuse Noah (and all the other Biblical males) and that creepy naked story about probable incest? And all the other sinful sex and violence in the rest of the Bible - the condoned rapes, the slaying of children, the sacrifices of women and children and of course sheep, birds, whatever...so your God can inhale the stench and be filled with his special brand of glory!

A minority of minority group is gonna get legally married - and not forcing any churches to marry anyone if they dont wish to based on religious reasons - this small number of people might marry - and the apple-cart is finally gonna topple!

Just like it did when Blacks could vote, or when whites and blacks could marry openly (but of course still vilified by many!) or when they could drink at the same fountains, or when women got jobs, or could vote...or - OMG drive!

The sky is NOT falling you bunch of Henny Pennies!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Moral Failure Of Christians 6 min blacklagoon 27
GALILEE or JERUSALEM (Jan '14) 19 min Jesus is 6
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 27 min Taranis 5,950
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 51 min Taranis 1,093
Why the Earth Was Created in Six Days 1 hr I love jesus 85
PAUL OUR FATHER . 1Cor 4: 15 (Feb '16) 1 hr I love jesus 122
The mark of the beast 1 hr anonymous 35
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 1 hr I love jesus 20,546
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 2 hr messianic114 2,457
More from around the web