Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 308

Thread: Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

  1. #136
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    You know, heterosexual "propaganda" is extremely prevalent in society, and heterosexual relationships are far more common than gay ones, and in many cases are the only normatively sanctioned ones. Yet incredibly, gay kids remain gay, even in the face of all this propaganda! Do you know why that is? Because they are gay. They can't change that. The same is true for straight kids: they can't change that even if they wanted. But if they want to experiment with their sexuality once they are past the age of consent, well, how exactly is that your business?

    There is nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with expressing bigotry towards gays. BTW, you do realize that you interact with LGBT people and their freinds and family all the time, both at GS and in real life? How would you feel if people were to describe whatever group you belong to the way you discuss LGBT folks?
    Who cares if you are gay! Did I say it was my business to mind what they are experimenting when they grow up?!!! I was talking about the five to ten year old kids! The kids of other people! Not the homosexual parent's kids! You are distracting the issue! I said chilling. Yes, Chilling! If you dare, go to read my post #47 in "Sasha Cohen on Gay Rights in Russia and the Olympics" thread in politics folder. That's the reason that we should have a law like the Russians have and put a Stop on such radical movement!

  2. #137
    Off the ice Buttercup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Left field
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    Who cares if you are gay! Did I say it was my business to mind what they are experimenting when they grow up?!!! I was talking about the five to ten year old kids! The kids of other people! Not the homosexual parent's kids! You are distracting the issue!
    Well, clearly you do mind gay relationships, or you wouldn't insist that hearing about them is so damaging to kids. Also, I am not "distracting" the issue. I am pointing out the ridiculousness of your statements - which, of course, you cannot back up with any scientifically rigorous research.

    So basically you are claiming that kids with gay parents, who are exposed to healthy gay relationships every day, will not seek to emulate them by "experimenting" at a young age, but kids with straight parents who might hear about homosexuality (say, in school) will? That doesn't even make any sense. Do many kids experiment with heterosexual sex at the age of 5-10? And I don't mean by playing doctor or playing with themselves.

    You really need to inform yourself on these issues, Bluebonnet. At the moment you are making a lot of uninformed and frankly offensive arguments.

  3. #138
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    Well, clearly you do mind gay relationships, or you wouldn't insist that hearing about them is so damaging to kids. Also, I am not "distracting" the issue. I am pointing out the ridiculousness of your statements - which, of course, you cannot back up with any scientifically rigorous research.

    So basically you are claiming that kids with gay parents, who are exposed to healthy gay relationships every day, will not seek to emulate them by "experimenting" at a young age, but kids with straight parents who might hear about homosexuality (say, in school) will? That doesn't even make any sense. Do many kids experiment with heterosexual sex at the age of 5-10? And I don't mean by playing doctor or playing with themselves.

    You really need to inform yourself on these issues, Bluebonnet. At the moment you are making a lot of uninformed and frankly offensive arguments.

    New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

    You confuse the young children. You plant a seed for identity confusion and crisis later when they are teens. They will experiment at that time which otherwise they won't. That is my take. You really need to inform yourself about children I should say.

    http://www.forthechildreninc.com/iss...rChildren.html

    ... that 8.9% of children in homosexual households became homosexual while only 2.4% of the children raised in heterosexual households became homosexual. In a subset of those studies, extracted because they reflect developed, not merely developing, homosexual orientation, Cameron found that 13.9% of the children raised in homosexual households became homosexual.

  4. #139
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,962
    Stop sourcing biased websites like the Family Research Council and ForTheChildren (which is tied to the FRC). These are the same people who would rather that a mother gives birth to a baby, even if the mother can't afford to raise it, the baby stemmed from rape, or if the childbirth would kill the mother. They're so outrageously backwards thinking and bigoted in their religious fundamentalism that using them as a reference nullifies any legitimate argument you might ever attempt to make.

    If you want to inform yourself or use links to support your points, use a legitimate source like a credible news source (Fox doesn't count) or a reputable scientific journal. Not stats reported by people who are paid to publish "findings" that support the FRC's agenda.

  5. #140
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

    You confuse the young children. You plant a seed for identity confusion and crisis later when they are teens. They will experiment at that time which otherwise they won't. That is my take. You really need to inform yourself about children I should say.

    http://www.forthechildreninc.com/iss...rChildren.html
    I had every possible "seed" for heterosexuality planted in me growing up and yet here I am, a gay man. So much for that assertion.

    Your first study (eg New Study on Homosexual Parents...) has been the subject of much debate, particularly because of flawed methodology, a problem acknowledged even by its own author:

    In “The New Family Structure Study,” Regnerus asked 3,000 adults ages 18-39 (including 248 with parents in a gay relationship) questions about their income levels, mental and physical health, romantic relationships and other markers.

    Social scientists and LGBT activists raised red flags from the get-go: Regnerus, whose work was published in the journal Social Science Research, only examined people who had a parent in a gay relationship at some point—not necessarily while they were children. And he didn’t ask subjects to specify if the gay parent was in a stable relationship through their childhood.

    But now even he admits there are flaws in his research. ThinkProgress pulled up an interview Regnerus did with anti-gay group Focus on the Family, where he explained:

    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.

    Regnerus also confesses he didn’t try to dissect the children’s concept of their parent’s sexuality because, “self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t out in that era.”

    Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/regnurus-admi...#ixzz2gblPzpXT

    As far as your second, released by For the Children Inc. oy veh. The study they cite was conducted by Dr Paul Cameron. From wikipedia:

    For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.
    From professional organizations

    The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members.[3][4] The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation.[22] FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion.[23] In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society.[24] The APA, however, does not allow the resignation of a member who is the subject of an ethics investigation.[25] An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."[4]

    In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[4] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution stating, “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”[26] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[27] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[28]


    In both cases, you are citing "research"--a term I use loosely here--that violates normative practices such as letting the findings shape any conclusions reached. Instead it is polemical. Its authors have predetermined the findings they wish to see, and have shaped the "research" accordingly.


    Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/regnurus-admi...#ixzz2gblPzpXT

  6. #141
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Stop sourcing biased websites like the Family Research Council and ForTheChildren (which is tied to the FRC). These are the same people who would rather that a mother gives birth to a baby, even if the mother can't afford to raise it, the baby stemmed from rape, or if the childbirth would kill the mother. They're so outrageously backwards thinking and bigoted in their religious fundamentalism that using them as a reference nullifies any legitimate argument you might ever attempt to make.

    If you want to inform yourself or use links to support your points, use a legitimate source like a credible news source (Fox doesn't count) or a reputable scientific journal. Not stats reported by people who are paid to publish "findings" that support the FRC's agenda.
    Which sources are not biased? Your "legitimate sources" are extreme liberals which are as credible as Fox. If you go back to the earlier posts in the Putin thread, there was a source from the American Psychological Association which a poster who was on your side posted. That credible source did not give you much support on the subject. In fact it has given a reason for this Russian law to stay. That was probably the only source that both sides accepted.

    Weakankles, what could anyone expect from queerty.com?

  7. #142
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,864
    That's the best you can do? It's flawed research funded by antigay groups to "scientifically" "prove" ideological ideas. Show me ONE study done by a university or a group that isn't funded by a conservative group out to "prove" an ideological point that proves children raised by LGBT parents are more prone to grow up gay/lesbian/bi. Just one. Instead you give us research where the primary researcher himself admits his study has flawed methodology and another study by someone so fraudulent every single professional organization he was ever associated with has either thrown him out or disavowed any association with him. Talk about a lack of credibility!

    And really, to use your own "logic," what could anyone expect from the Family Research Council?

    But again, I've never met a bigot yet who has let a lack of logic, reason, and fact stand in their way.

  8. #143
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by WeakAnkles View Post
    That's the best you can do? It's flawed research funded by antigay groups to "scientifically" "prove" ideological ideas. Show me ONE study done by a university or a group that isn't funded by a conservative group out to "prove" an ideological point that proves children raised by LGBT parents are more prone to grow up gay/lesbian/bi. Just one. Instead you give us research where the primary researcher himself admits his study has flawed methodology and another study by someone so fraudulent every single professional organization he was ever associated with has either thrown him out or disavowed any association with him. Talk about a lack of credibility!

    And really, to use your own "logic," what could anyone expect from the Family Research Council?

    But again, I've never met a bigot yet who has let a lack of logic, reason, and fact stand in their way.
    This. So much.

  9. #144
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by WeakAnkles View Post
    Show me ONE study done by a university or a group that isn't funded by a conservative group out to "prove" an ideological point that proves children raised by LGBT parents are more prone to grow up gay/lesbian/bi. Just one.
    Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

    children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

    Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.

  10. #145
    Off the ice Buttercup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Left field
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebonnet View Post
    Which sources are not biased? Your "legitimate sources" are extreme liberals which are as credible as Fox. If you go back to the earlier posts in the Putin thread, there was a source from the American Psychological Association which a poster who was on your side posted. That credible source did not give you much support on the subject. In fact it has given a reason for this Russian law to stay. That was probably the only source that both sides accepted.
    Peer-reviewed scientific research. Go to Google Scholar, search for, say "children of same-sex parents" (throw in "meta-analysis" if you want an article that examines findings from multiple studies) and see what you find. You will not find much to support your claims, certainly not in newer research that using appropriate methodology. But findings will not always be easily reduced to a soundbite length summary. and sometimes you do need some background in research methods and statistics to understand what exactly was examined and what the findings mean. The report you are referring to was an attempt to summarize knowledge on the subject for people seeking help and information rather than for researchers and professionals. You fixated on the part that said "both nature and nurture play complex roles", ignoring the second part of the sentence: "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Not surprisingly, you also ignored the rest of the article, which offered no support for your views or for the Russian law. The source was indeed accepted by everyone in the discussion, but to say that your interpretation of it was accepted is misleading at best.

    There is a lot of research that counters the arguments you have made in this thread and the earlier one. If you choose to ignore it in favor of biased, non-scientific sources, don't expect to be taken seriously. The Family Research Council is about as credible as the Academy of Tobacco Studies in Thank You for Smoking.

    And you still haven't explained what "gay propaganda" is.

    ETA: re Schumm, a review of ten books is not a meta-analysis. And my guess would be that cultures with higher acceptance of homosexuality have more gay behavior because fewer people stay in the closet, not because homosexuality suddenly becomes more prevalent. But if that's what Schumm wants to do, well, I imagine he has tenure and can do whatever he likes. As for the Regnerus study that the FRC thinks "tops all previous studies" (whatever that means), it's not just Queerty that reported on the serious flaws in his methodology and analysis.

  11. #146
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    And you still haven't explained what "gay propaganda" is.

    ETA: re Schumm, a review of ten books is not a meta-analysis. And my guess would be that cultures with higher acceptance of homosexuality have more gay behavior because fewer people stay in the closet, not because homosexuality suddenly becomes more prevalent. But if that's what Schumm wants to do, well, I imagine he has tenure and can do whatever he likes. As for the Regnerus study that the FRC thinks "tops all previous studies" (whatever that means), it's not just Queerty that reported on the serious flaws in his methodology and analysis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    ETA: re Schumm, a review of ten books is not a meta-analysis. And my guess would be that cultures with higher acceptance of homosexuality have more gay behavior because fewer people stay in the closet, not because homosexuality suddenly becomes more prevalent. But if that's what Schumm wants to do, well, I imagine he has tenure and can do whatever he likes. As for the Regnerus study that the FRC thinks "tops all previous studies" (whatever that means), it's not just Queerty that reported on the serious flaws in his methodology and analysis.
    It's logical that a kid who is gay and is raised by gay parents will come to terms with their sexuality without fear or alienation moreso than a kid in a straight household (since one assumes gay parents on the whole are more accepting if their kids happen to be gay). It's a no-brainer and no surprise that kids reared in a non-homophobic household are more likely to identify as gay come their adulthood.

    It is still a huge stigma for families to have gay kids. So much so that kids will force themselves into thinking they're straight to avoid confrontation with their family, potential disownment, not being loved anymore, etc. As society grows to accept gays more (i.e. stop giving a damn about sexual orientation), gay kids will be just as likely to come to terms with their sexuality in a straight household as they would in an accepting gay household.

    Also, it's not the duty of parents gay or straight to ensure that their kids turn out straight or gay. The majority of kids will have a sexuality that is independent of the sexuality of their parents. Done.


    BlueBonnett/sky_fly, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you don't have kids... exactly what would you do if you had a kid who turned out to be gay or lesbian? Would you feel that you've failed as a parent? Would you try to convince them or condition them into thinking they were straight? Would you disown them or tell them they were going to Hell?

  12. #147
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,962

  13. #148
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,864
    About Schumm (eg, the subject of "Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids")...well Buttercup has pointed out the main flaw of Schumm's "research": the fact that Schrumm didn't do any. Now a review of existing literature can be evidential, but of course any court in the land would take a close look at the nature of that evidence. The 10 books Schumm used are books written specifically about gay parent/child relationships. That is their focus. What Schrumm failed to mention, for example, is that one of the ten books (Abigail Garner’s Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is), deliberately featured a 50/50 balance of number of LBGT AND heterosexual offspring. There was absolutely nothing random in that sample (a fact Schrumm fails oh so conveniently to mention--oops). Then, to compound the problem, he drew his conclusion about the children of heterosexual parents from a nationwide study using random sampling. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and lawn furniture. In fact, what Schumm did, in terms of methodology was exactly the same as in the discredited "study" by Paul Cameron. He simply increased the number of books under consideration from 3 to 10.

    I could go on with the problems in methodology, but instead I'll simply pose two points:

    1. If, as you argue, that LGBT parents "plant the seed for identity confusion" in their children, why do the vast majority of those children grow up to be heterosexual? This isn't a matter of "identity confusion" by the way--both LGBT kids and heterosexual kids don't seem to be all that confused by their identities. It's just people like you who want to force a subgroup of those children to adopt an "identity" that is, and I use this word deliberately, unnatural to them.
    2. And really, what does it matter if indeed LGBT parents do indeed raise more LGBT kids (though, as we have seen, that assertion is, at best, highly debatable)? It only matters if you think homosexuality etc. is wrong.

    Which, of course, it isn't.

  14. #149
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by WeakAnkles View Post
    And really, what does it matter if indeed LGBT parents do indeed raise more LGBT kids (though, as we have seen, that assertion is, at best, highly debatable)? It only matters if you think homosexuality etc. is wrong. Which, of course, it isn't.
    Well, BlueBonnet does find homosexuality to be wrong and has even referred to LGBT lifestyles as "immoral" and "messy". Personally, I wouldn't worry about my kid being gay or straight so much as them growing up to be a good person. But I guess every parent has their priorities...

  15. #150
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Buttercup View Post
    And you still haven't explained what "gay propaganda" is.
    I have told you where to look for it. You didn't go to watch and read but continue to ask the same question.

    By the way, the eye openers:

    10 Ways Gay Activists Shifted Culture

    In Their Own Words - Gay Activists Speak

Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •