Gay Adoption?

Corkfeen

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Read everything that Oldrnwisr links to in this post as it refutes the entire study(Which was there almost immediately after you posted the study). A bit of research on your part wouldn't go astray or simply reading what people post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84235911&postcount=635

Seachmall

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are the points you brought up supported by credible evidence?

If not they don't need to be disproven.

oldrnwisr

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK how clear do I have to make this. The Marks study which is the only one out of the two you have cited which attempts to undermine the existing body of research into gay parenting is fatally flawed. It is not being dismissed out of hand but rather because of the biased behaviour of the author and his own admission under oath that he had not read the studies he claimed to.

"Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents. Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed."

That in a nutshell is why Mark's study is full of crap.

The longer text of this incident can be found here:

Plaintiff Motion to Exclude the expert report and testimony of Katherine Young, Loren Marks and David Blankenhorn

Some more quotes of note:

"Moreover, in his deposition, Dr. Marks withdrew his claim that genetic parent-child relationships are important to child outcomes and noted that he knows of no empirical research that identifies biology as the cause of good outcomes for children."

"Not only does Dr. Marks fail to offer any analysis or insight into any of the studies he quoted, but he admits that he did not even completely read the studies cited in his report."

"At the time of Dr. Marks’ deposition, Dr. Marks could only name two studies, one from 1996 and one from 2004, that compared different family structures, including same-sex parents."

darced wrote: »

The tables have turned and you guys are now not producing the evidence to disprove the points I brought up.

It leads me to believe that it is far from scientific or as cut and dried as some of the studies refered to suggest.

It's an open book still on gay parenting and there are no clear answers yet.

That book you're on about isn't as open as you think.

There are some very clear answers and the body of research in this area has already lead to the development of scientific consensus. I have previously outlined the consensus positions of a wide range of medical and scientific organisations here.

B0jangles

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly how delusional does a person have to be to wheel out two studies in the face of at least a couple of dozen, have those two be revealed as being thouroughly discredited by professional peers of the authors, revealed as being massively funded by closely linked single-issue pressure groups who are focussed on the topic of said studies, and then claim that "the tables have turned".

?

I'm genuinely curious.

StewartGriffin

humanji wrote: »

They were banned for ignoring mod warnings. If you have a problem with this, PM the mod in question or create a thread about it in the Feedback forum. Don't derail this thread.

Derail this thread??!!?


Mr, this thread said goodbye to the rails around about page 2

Mod: Banned

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Those are some of the questions that Loren Marks asked in his review of the APA study. In fact, your post is almost a carbon copy of the first bullet point of this blog entry about the Loren Marks report:

“More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the studies cited by the APA are based on small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants.” Further, many of these studies were racially homogenous, focusing on white gay couples. Furthermore, only eight of the 59 published studies focused specifically on outcomes of children from gay fathers. Of those eight, four did not include a heterosexual comparison group. Of the four that did include heterosexual comparison groups, one of them relied on a heterosexual comparison group of two single fathers.

oldrnwisr has already shown how Marks has said his review was a piece of crap, so I think we can safely assume "your" questions are answered.

Do you have any other sites you want to regurgitate questions from? At the rate you're going, I expect to see something from the NARTH website in the near future!

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

How the heck did I miss this??

First study into Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender parents in Ireland launched

That's been available for the last 2 months and I only see it now. I'm getting slow in my old age...

It's not a comparison of parenting groups, and I haven't read it yet, but a report on the experiences of LGBT parents in Ireland is definitely useful in a thread about gay adoption and parenting.

NuMarvel

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The questions are flawed and based on an incomplete review of the studies. I really suggest you read oldrnwsr's posts, particularly #635, because he deals with this issue conclusively.

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you read oldrnwsr's posts? Because, if nothing else, the reason for the APA study was very clearly set out before you even asked.

darced

This post has been deleted.

K-9

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well posters would need time to answer in depth stuff like that, anyway:

Further, many of these studies were racially homogenous, focusing on white gay couples

Why is that significant, why do you hold a race as an important factor?

NuMarvel

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know why you have difficulty reading oldrnwsr's posts, but in the interests of moving this on:

(Relevant pasts in bold)

oldrnwisr wrote:

(here)

The Marks study

Marks' study claims to analyse a number of studies of gay parenting (all of which showed positive outcomes) and show that the sample size chosen means that the conclusions are not justified.

Loren Marks has been parroting this line for a number of years. In fact this very issue (attacking the basis of the APA consensus) came up in a case challenging Prop 8. in California. Under cross-examination Marks admitted that, in fact, he hadn't read any of the studies which he claimed to analyse. As a result his testimony was ruled inadmissible.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are several major flaws with the Marks paper even before we get to the ethical issues surrounding the author. It should be pointed out before I begin, though, that the 2005 APA study is not actually a study but rather an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief prepared by the APA detailing the evidence supporting same-sex parenting.

1. In 2010, Loren Marks was called as an expert witness for the defence in a case challenging the legality of California's Proposition 8. Marks testified that children did best with their biological or genetic parents. Under cross-exmaniation Marks admitted that he had cherry picked data from the studies and he had not in fact read most of the studies which he cited in his report (which he later replicated as the study you linked to).

Two other defense experts (social science researchers from McGill University) also admitted during depositions that:

"equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage."

The deposition transcripts and case report can be found here. Marks' involvement is described thusly:

"Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents. Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed."


2. Mark's main point of criticism is the small sample sizes used in the studies cited by the APA. While Marks portrays this as a problem for the conclusions drawn by the studies, this is not the opinion of other researchers in the field. Meezan and Rauch's literature review of same-sex parenting in 2005 points out that same-sex couples represent a small and geographically diverse population and that gathering a large sample size is a methodological problem rather than an analytical one. Rosenfeld also notes this in his census study in 2010, pointing out that all same-sex couples taken together represent just 1.8% of family forms in the United States.


3. Despite publishing his paper seven years after the brief (and nine years after the latest study included in the report) which he criticizes, Marks makes no attempt to incorporate studies outside those cited in the APA brief to show whether or not they support his claims. There have been large sample-size nationally representative studies conducted subsequent to the APA's brief. Two noteworthy examples of these include the 2010 Rosenfeld study mentioned earlier and the US Dept. of Health & Human Services study in 2010.


4. Marks also, as noted above, fails to account for any research conducted in to lesbian and gay parenting which fatally unhinges any valid analysis.


5. Marks makes no acknowledgement of the many other medical and social work bodies which have issued position statements in favour of equal marriage which makes the entire paper rather redundant.


6. Despite reviewing 59 papers cited by the APA in his paper, Marks fails to point out that there are in fact 65 empirical studies specifically related to gay and lesbian parents and their children cited in the report. He makes no acknowledgement of why excludes the remaining six. Furthermore, the report also cites empirical studies related to the general fitness of lesbian women and gay men as parents as well as many literature reivews, meta-analyses, legal reviews and individual case studies in support of its conclusions. All told there are over 130 publications cited in the report over half of which are ignored by Marks.

So basically, the questions are flawed because they are raised by someone who didn't read the reports, got information factually incorrect and who admits he never reviewed research on parenting by gay couples. Which, when you think about it, includes you too

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, the irony... :pac::pac:

darced

This post has been deleted.

darced

This post has been deleted.

K-9

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did you not ask that question in post 967?

That somebody called you out on copying and pasting afterwards isn't that relevant.

Its a discussion site, you shouldn't post points that you yourself aren't willing to discuss, and then expect others to answer instead. It's disingenuous debate.

darced

This post has been deleted.

K-9

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Post 657, typo!.

That's strange, because you were the first person to post about race.

So, I'll ask again, as in post 657, do you see race as a significant factor, and if so, why?

If you don't, why are you asking people to answer a point you don't even see as significant yourself?

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

K-9 wrote: »

Post 657, typo!.

That's strange, because you were the first person to post about race.

So, I'll ask again, as in post 657, do you see race as a significant factor, and if so, why?

If you don't, why are you asking people to answer a point you don't even believe yourself?

He's being pedantic. He didn't ask the question because he simply copied it from somewhere else.

Which means I, nor anyone else, can't give a yes or no answer to his questions, because he hasn't asked any questions.

K-9

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, my humble apologies, I read the following post and didn't spot the difference. Apologies for the mess that ensued!

Means Of Escape

B0jangles wrote: »

I challenge you now to produce a peer-reviewed, non-discredited study that unequivocally found that children raised by gay couples fared worse that children raised by straight couples.

No "I think"'s

No "It's obvious"'s

No "Nature says"'s

No cheap insults directed at other posters to deflect criticism.

Actual evidence.

Www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

B0jangles

me bolly wrote: »

Www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

You're quoting NARTH as a source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality

Gay-repairers NARTH.

"NARTH's leaders disagree with the global scientific consensus, the holding of the world's major mental health organizations, and scientific research into the topic which show that homosexuality is not a disorder"

"NARTH received criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center for Gerald Schoenewolf's essay, Gay Rights and Political Correctness: A Brief History, in which the member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee argued that "Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle... Life there was savage ... and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off." He also stated that the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement were all "irrational" and "destructive."

With all due respect, that is not a very credible source.

somefeen

I was raised by a woman and a transgendered man (male to female)

I have some crazy and probably downright offensive opinions on things, but overall I am a well adjusted functional member of society. Nobody knew until last year though so I can't account for the bullying. But my parents were essentially same sex, we just didn't realise.

Bannasidhe

me bolly wrote: »

Www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

Next up:

Dr I Paisley 'The Influence of Alcoholism on Irish Nationalism.'

J. Ratzinger 'Radical Feminism and Society.'

H. Himmler 'Judaism and International Finance.'

A. Rynd 'The illusion of Regulation - The Nanny State'.


:rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

me bolly wrote: »

Www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

If you're telling me you believe every word of that (incomplete) study, then you are indeed factually homophobic.

And that's withotu knowing anything about Narth.

Nodin

If NARTH has come, NAMBLA must surely follow.....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nodin wrote: »

If NARTH has come, NAMBLA must surely follow.....

...followed by the Iona instituate and the Catholic Church...

Annasopra

Maybe Irish guys should protest like this

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/france-most-homoerotic-anti-gay-protest-ever190413

B0jangles

mango salsa wrote: »

Maybe Irish guys should protest like this

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/france-most-homoerotic-anti-gay-protest-ever190413

French anti-gay marriage campaigners are very confusing - one of their most vocal leaders calls herself Frigide Barjot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/frigide-barjot-france-comedian-gay-marriage_n_2455573.html

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

If NARTH has come, NAMBLA must surely follow.....

They actually made it into Darce's 'legitimate' study although he still ignores all criticisms of it....

NuMarvel

Quinn & the Not-An-Iota Institute in Child Trends Study Doesn't Say What We Said It Said shocker:

The available data does not allow us to say how well children raised by same-sex couples fare compared with the biological married family.

It would be invalid, therefore, and a misuse of the Child Trends paper quoted above to pretend the available research shows that children raised by same-sex couples do worse than children raised by their own married, biological parents.

But, it's okay. Because the Loren Marks paper shows us that the APA study is wrong too!

And to this day it remains the case that there are no large national surveys that allows us to draw reliable conclusions about the children of same-sex couples.

The question which then arises is why, back in 2005, the American Psychological Association was so quick to come to the conclusion that ‘the kids are alright’ given the lack of large national surveys examining how the children of same-sex couples actually fare?

Those trying to use the Child Trends quote against organisations like the Iona Institute need to be aware that they are well and truly hoist by their own petard because what the quote really does is expose the fact that those claiming 'the kids are alright' have jumped way ahead of the available evidence.

(For more on this read this paper by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University)

Dave, ol boy, what the Child Trends quote exposes is that you misrepresented their study, and you're now trying to replace a misrepresented paper with one that has been discredited by its own author.

What's really disturbing about this is that the quality of his arguments aren't any better than we're finding on this thread! For some insane reason, I expected someone in such a public position to have more cogent and valid arguments. My mistake.