If you are citing prop 8, I'm sure you read the studies that were brought up in the case that showed children brought up in a same sex household turned out as well as kids in an opposite sex household, and the pro prop 8 was unable to find any studies that showed otherwise?That testimony is summarized here. Those studies are limited, biased, and dubious for various reasons, such as those listed
here.
I think that these studies should have been irrelevant to the case. The judges are not competent to understand them, and they certainly should not be making policy based on academic surveys by gay rights activists. Would they order polygamy legalized if some Moslem professors brought in some studies on the virtues of polygamy? Would black marriage be disallowed if some studies showed that blacks are lousy parents? Of course not.
There is much more solid evidence that kids do better with a mom and a dad. There are dozens of studies showing this, even after divorce. See the Bauserman 2002 review. But the family courts ignore this. They appoint so-called experts who make recommendations with no basis in science.
Another narrow-minded gay commenter tells me that I should not express my opinions, and cites this article:
"Imagine being a child living in a state with two parents in which, legally, only one parent is allowed to be their parent," Powell told LiveScience. "In that situation, the family is not seen as authentic or real by others. That would be the disadvantage."This is crazy. There are millions of American parents who are legally prevented from being parents to their kids. I am talking about real parents, not gay parent wannabes. Instead, this article complains about a few thousand non-parents who are allowed to act as parents, but who are seen as not authentic parents. In many cases, they are not the authentic parents, and they are usurping the roles of the real parents.
22 comments:
Do you think it was acceptable for the pro Prop 8 side was allowed to make claims, both during the election and in court, that said a child raised in a same sex household was at a disadvantage but those opposed should not be allowed to counter that with facts? And the article you link to just gives a dubious "more research is needed" claim. How much more research? And why? The issues brought up in that article would get laughed out of court.
So, you are complaining that someone different than you dared defend themselves from malicious lies by you and others? You are allowed to make false claims, but when numerous studies show your claims to be false, you say more research is needed? After all, you brought up the claim that same sex couples in some way are not good for children.
Please point out where in Bauserman it says kids do better with a mom and dad. All I can find is that that it says having two parents in a child's life is better than one, and that's what those supporting marriage between two people that love each other want.
Yes, it was acceptable for both sides of the proposition to make their arguments to the public. They did. Most of those arguments should have been irrelevant to the court case.
There is no study showing my claims to be false. If you find one, please post it.
All of the Bauserman studies concerned a child being with a mom and a dad.
There are no "authentic" parents and "wannabe" parents. A parent is a parent, whether it's a step-parent, grandparent, gay parent, or other.
A parent is "a person who brings up and cares for another."
Again, and as I commented about on your other narrow-minded post, being a "biological" parent doesn't automatically make an "authentic" parent. Stepping up and fulfilling the duties of a parent is what makes a parent.
Your ignorance on this will lose you a lot of readers and supporters. I remember one grandmother "parent" reader on this blog and I'm sure she'd disagree with being called a "wannabe parent," as do I as a step-father and only real father to my daughter.
"Yes, it was acceptable for both sides of the proposition to make their arguments to the public. They did. Most of those arguments should have been irrelevant to the court case."
And yet the pro Prop 8 brought those issues up in court. So you're upset people stood up to the lies in court?
"There is no study showing my claims to be false. If you find one, please post it."
Since you claim to have read about Prop 8, how did you miss this? http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf
Particularly page 19, citing the following studies:
J. Stacey & T.J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159 (2001);
C.J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052 (2000);
N. Anderssen et al., Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents, 43 Scand. J. Psychol. 335 (2002);
J. Pawelski et al., The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children, 118 Pediatrics 349, 358-60 (2006);
J.L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Dev. 1886, 1895 (2004).
"All of the Bauserman studies concerned a child being with a mom and a dad."
R. Bauserman, Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 16, No. 1.
It is not comparing same sex parents against opposite sex parents. It is comparing sole custody against joint custody.
At this point either you are so locked into your hate of those different that you cannot understand how you could be wrong, or you are purposefully posting false information to mislead and anger others.
The pro-gay brief says, "These studies ... are impressively consistent in their failure to identify deficits in parenting abilities or in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household." I don't doubt that. The studies fail to say anything relevant to the court case.
Yes, Bauserman does not compare same sex parents. There is no such thing as same sex parents.
You have no study showing that anything I said is false.
I looked back as what you've written, and realized I may be misinterpreting it. Since I believe I am not the only one, some clarification may be helpful:
Do you believe that a child adopted by a married, gay or lesbian couple is harmed or disadvantaged compared to a child adopted by a married, straight couple, and if so, how?
Do you believe Bauserman is relevant to the issue of married gay and lesbian parents, and if so, how?
If the answer to both of those is no, then I do apologize for misreading what you meant.
George:
you really put your foot in it this time. I understand you're upset losing your children to a fouled up and corrupt legal system. Bashing Jews, gays, and so-called leftists (a term no longer valid IMHO any more than conservative) isn't going to help the cause of reforming Family Law in this country. In fact, you're hurting it by acting like a willfully ignorant neaderthal. Again. And again. Get to the heart of the matter of what's wrong with the system: financial incentives, the false "science" of psychology (I'd flunk those studies if they ever presented them in one of my classes), and just plain mean and vindictive human nature brought out by the traumatic circumstance of a failed relationship.
Money is key in the American culture as is the politics that keeps it flowing towards the politicians and lawyers who make the rules based on who pays them. Get to that. LGBT, Jews, and whatever other political enemies you hallucinate are not the issue here. It is State vs the people. That's the way it always goes in government, read your history. Get a clue and get your nose out of the computer programming algorithms. You clearly have no idea how the real world works nor understand history.
I promised I'd stop commenting in your blog but had to say something, and so to clean up a matter from an earlier posting of yours that left me almost as disgusted as this one, Fascism survived until the 70s with the death of Franco and and the Carnation Revolution in Portugal. It did not die at the end of WWII. The US supported Fascism in those countries as well as in South America. In fact you can argue that fascism survived in Latin America into the late 80s w/the removal of Pinochet in Chile.
So can you please put your energy into trying to actually do something to reform the system instead of bash people you don't like behind the safety of your computer screen? You're just another internet bully, and a bully by definition is just a coward.
To Anonymous at 10:38 AM: If you are asking me an empirical social science question, then you could look at the social science literature. The answer might depend on ages, income, cultural factors, and opinion about whatever you mean by "harmed or disadvantaged". As far as I know, there are no good studies.
To Anonymous at 10:49 AM: I write about bad financial incentives, bad psychology studies, and vindictive court parties a lot. I am not sure what Fascists have to do with anything, but there are leftists who are anti-family and against parental rights. I sometimes quote what they say. You call it "bashing". I am just pointing out what they say, and disagreeing with it.
"As far as I know, there are no good studies."
Here are five good studies, so now you do know:
J. Stacey & T.J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159 (2001);
C.J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052 (2000);
N. Anderssen et al., Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay Parents, 43 Scand. J. Psychol. 335 (2002);
J. Pawelski et al., The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children, 118 Pediatrics 349, 358-60 (2006);
J.L. Wainright et al., Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents, 75 Child Dev. 1886, 1895 (2004).
And in case you are wanting to not look them up, they all conclude the answer is that children are not harmed or disadvantaged by having gay or lesbian parents. If you don't believe they are good studies, what do you find wrong with their methodology?
I do admit, you have a nice way of dodging both questions to avoid actually having written something that could be shown to be false. Instead to choose to slander with innuendo. If you believe otherwise, give a yes or no answer to these slightly rephrased questions:
Do you believe that a child adopted by a married gay couple or a married lesbian couple is harmed or disadvantaged compared to a child adopted by a married straight couple?
Do you believe Bauserman is relevant to the issue of married gay and lesbian parents?
George, you're not disageeing w/anything, you bash. You are hateful and spiteful because you lost your children and now you're taking it out on those you've been raised to despise. And clearly you have. Leftist? Conservative? Meaningless terms now. Get out of the Cold War.
My comments re fascism was in response to a post of yours some time ago that I just stopped responding to. And again, I'll stop here. Good luck to you, sir, you're going to need it. Just stick with the computer science, that's all you seem to know.
The terms "Leftist" and "Conservative" had meaning before the Cold War, and they continue to have meaning afterwards. Leftists and conservatives openly call themselves leftists and conservatives. These are not bashing terms. I do strongly criticize those who seek to separate parents from their kids. If that offends you, then you do not have to read my blog. If I am ignorant of some fact, you are welcome to post facts that inform me and my readers.
Since you are choosing not to answer, I am taking that as tacit agreement that I have shown what you said to be false and you are too proud to admit this.
If this is not the case, please respond to the two simple questions from 12:08 PM with yes or no answers.
To Anonymous at 1:03 PM: I answered your questions at 11:48 AM. I do not agree that those studies prove "that children are not harmed or disadvantaged by having gay or lesbian parents." If the Prop. 8 court used that conclusion in its reasoning, then I do not agree with that reasoning. I will try to post a more detailed explanation at a future date.
Whether those studies are persuasive or not, they have little to do with the points made in my post. Those studies do not contradict anything that I said.
I do not see where you answered the questions. There is no reference to Bauserman at 11:48 AM, and you state you don't know of any studies as your answer, even though I already provided them. So, to keep you from dodging yet again, please answer something similar to:
1) Yes
2) Yes
or:
1) No
2) No
Note that I asked what you believe to be true, since I realize no amount of proof will cause you to change your mind. I imagine you won't give yes or no answers, though, since you realize you are wrong, so you'd rather dodge the question than be held to what you wrote.
I have answered your questions. Not in detail, as they are somewhat off-topic for this blog. To the extent that you are asking an empirical question, I do not believe that the studies have the data to answer it. To the extent that you are asking for a subjective opinion, you have not defined what you consider harmful. To the extent that you are asking for a critique of certain published studies, maybe I will post that in the future.
The Bauserman study is relevant to certain family court child custody matters, and they could involve gays and lesbians. So yes, it could be relevant.
You seem to be reading something into my words that I am not saying, so I guess I will post more on the points that I am making.
It is sad that you hold such an irrational hatred and fear of others that you can't even give a direct answer. I never asked for detail - I asked for a simple yes or no. How in your mind asking "yes" or "no" counts as a detailed answer makes me question your programming ability. How much more simple of a return can you get than a boolean?
In your posts, you have appeared to imply that gay parents should not be given equal rights, and now you are saying that you don't know when being called to answer for that.
You use for your argument Bauserman, and then try to do some hand-waving to say it backs up your point about gay men and women when it does not. Your answer might as well have been "The Bauserman study is relevant to human matters, and humans can be gays and lesbians. So yes, it could be relevant."
If you feel what has been discussed is off topic for this blog, you have only yourself to blame. I did not raise any issues that were not first brought up by you.
Since you have four times refused to give a simple yes or no to two questions about what you believe, I think most reasonable people would find against you. Any judge would have found you in contempt for such evasiveness. Which I think may explain a lot.
OK, you are in fact ignorant of the terms "liberal" and "conservative". For starters, just hit Wikipedia. They are mutable and have changed over time and in cultural context.
I have already explained the concept of statism vs the people here, I'm not going to repeat myself.
Keep digging, George, the hole is getting deeper. I really wish you'd have stuck to the real issues, of which you have at first dealt with, but now have deviated from and gone into some sort of witch hunt against those who aren't even part of the equation of parents losing their children via a very malign system.
The only immutibles I've found in life are the the laws of nature (physics) and human behavior, which hasn't changed in the umpteen thousand years of recorded history.
You can sling all the semantics and definitions that suit your argument to your heart's content, that's what lawyers, politicians and other assorted scumbags do. And that's exactly what you're doing in addition to evading decisive answers to questions posted here. Like I said earlier, not only would I flunk the psychologists for their piss-poor use of science, I'd flunk your ass for not giving a straight answer. Ever read 1984? Language is ultimately how you control the population beside force of arms and money.
You are no different in your hatred towards others that aren't like you than the Women's Studies dept at UC Santa Cruz. More hatred and bigotry isn't going to get your kids back nor help solve the problem.
If there is some conspiracy of the LGBT/Jew/"liberal" world against family, spit it out. I don't see it. I'm none of the above, either, but I have no ax to grind with any of those so-called groups. Why? They're not the problem. They aren't a problem. Period.
Anonymous, are you arguing that the terms conservative, leftist, and liberal are meaningless, or that they are defined by Wikipedia? These are useful terms. If you want to know what they mean, consult Wikipedia or a dictionary.
I sometimes quote liberals giving liberal opinions. Some people will agree, and some will disagree. I hope that it is informative, at least.
"Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level and then win by experience", Mark Twain.
"George", you're an idiot. Read what I wrote. It's all there. You should read the Wikipedia definition of liberal, you actually are a liberal by definition as you supposedly espouse the principles that this county were founded upon, which are liberal by all definitions.
You are either willfully being ignorant or disingenuous. I don't think you listen or read, either. Not to mention you're also bigoted. Did your mommy teach you be this way?
If you applied the time and energy into actually solving the problems of Family Law instead of spewing your venom you'd well be on the way to getting legislation underway in Sacramento to change things. Much easier and safer to hide behind your computer screen and spout off your prejudice, ignorance and hatred, isn't it? Coward.
And thanks for adding fuel to the fire for the argument against changing the laws and the attitudes towards fathers as they currently stand.
I do ignore ad hominem attacks.
you ignore what is convenient for you.
Post a Comment