Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law | Page 8 | Golden Skate

Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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.:p

Weakankles, what could anyone expect from queerty.com?
 

WeakAnkles

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
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.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
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.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
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.
 

Buttercup

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
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.:p
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.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
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.

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?
 

WeakAnkles

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
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.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
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... :rolleye:
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
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

So does that mean you agree with the author then when they say:
"In a world that is based on the laws of sowing and reaping as well as merit, the gay community deserves the influence it presently wields in culture because it has worked hard for decades to achieve cultural acceptance and celebration."

I think tolerance and celebration of LGBT culture is a wonderful thing. People seem to have issue with the latter... Saying "I tolerate gays, but them celebrating their gayness with a Pride parade is too much" is as ridiculous and discriminatory as saying, "I'll tolerate Christians but shoving their faith in our faces with Christmas and an annual Santa Claus parade is too much".

Christianity is waning more and more in America, and the rest of the world, and they're pretty obtuse if they think they can reverse that by ostracizing minorities rather than trying to be loving and inclusive (as the author pointed out at the end).
 

bigsisjiejie

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
I've tangled with "Bluebonnet" before on a different issue on this forum. Same torrent of illogic, closemindedness and defensiveness though. Ultimately, not a person worth wasting your time on.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
So does that mean you agree with the author then when they say:
"In a world that is based on the laws of sowing and reaping as well as merit, the gay community deserves the influence it presently wields in culture because it has worked hard for decades to achieve cultural acceptance and celebration."

I think tolerance and celebration of LGBT culture is a wonderful thing. People seem to have issue with the latter... Saying "I tolerate gays, but them celebrating their gayness with a Pride parade is too much" is as ridiculous and discriminatory as saying, "I'll tolerate Christians but shoving their faith in our faces with Christmas and an annual Santa Claus parade is too much".

Christianity is waning more and more in America, and the rest of the world, and they're pretty obtuse if they think they can reverse that by ostracizing minorities rather than trying to be loving and inclusive (as the author pointed out at the end).

I do not totally agree with what they said, but they carry remarkable truth. Don't you agree?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I do not totally agree with what they said, but they carry remarkable truth. Don't you agree?

Yes, it is remarkable that in spite of the gross intolerance that gays have historically faced (and still currently face), they have been able to transcend that and thrive more and more as a minority, gain tolerance and support, and celebrate who they are instead of being made to feel shameful or fear persecution (save for Russia, Middle Eastern nations, and other intolerant, backwards thinking countries). In some cases, they can now even get married and be privy to the same civil liberties and privileges as everyone else (imagine that.. not being treated like second-class citizens).

I mean on the other hand, being accepted and not discriminated by society shouldn't be seen as an achievement, it should be par for the course. We shouldn't have to celebrate being less discriminated against and less oppressed. But it's a disservice to take progress for granted, as well as the sacrifices LGBT advocates before us have made, so that today LGBT people can feel treated as equals, feel proud of their inherent sexual orientation instead of ashamed by it, and not be so ostracized by society. This is why we celebrate. It's the same reason Black History month is celebrated.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Yes, it is remarkable that in spite of the gross intolerance that gays have historically faced (and still currently face), they have been able to transcend that and thrive more and more as a minority, gain tolerance and support, and celebrate who they are instead of being made to feel shameful or fear persecution (save for Russia, Middle Eastern nations, and other intolerant, backwards thinking countries). In some cases, they can now even get married and be privy to the same civil liberties and privileges as everyone else (imagine that.. not being treated like second-class citizens).

I mean on the other hand, being accepted and not discriminated by society shouldn't be seen as an achievement, it should be par for the course. We shouldn't have to celebrate being less discriminated against and less oppressed. But it's a disservice to take progress for granted, as well as the sacrifices LGBT advocates before us have made, so that today LGBT people can feel treated as equals, feel proud of their inherent sexual orientation instead of ashamed by it, and not be so ostracized by society. This is why we celebrate. It's the same reason Black History month is celebrated.

That is wrong.

In western world, you are not oppressed group. The Christians are. You have become the elitist group of people, higher than the blacks, higher than any other minorities. People who hold religions have to be forced to swallow or be suffocated, like the examples Toni has listed. What is freedom of speech?! What is freedom of religion?! People will be tolerated only if they agree with you. Scientific studies will be accepted only if they fit your political agenda! Look at Jeremy Abbott! Who would dare to voice different voices that you don't want to hear next time?!!! Abbott is supposed to be one of your own if the rumors are truned out to be true. But no, you won't accept any different voice.
 

WeakAnkles

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
I've tangled with "Bluebonnet" before on a different issue on this forum. Same torrent of illogic, closemindedness and defensiveness though. Ultimately, not a person worth wasting your time on.

Fortunately, Bluebonnet is not the only person who reads the posts here. Perhaps someone else will read a thread like this and realize you should never just blindly accept so-called "expert opinion." Look at what any particular "expert" is saying, what conclusions she/he reaches and, most importantly, how those conclusions were arrived at. Use logic, reason, thought. Don't be swayed by emotion. Keep an open mind.
 

WeakAnkles

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
That is wrong.

In western world, you are not pressed group. The Christians are. You have become the elitest group of people, higher than the blacks, higher than any other minorities. People who hold religions have to be forced to swallow or be suffocated, like the examples Toni has listed. What is freedom of speech?! What is freedom of religion?! People will be tolerated only if they agree with you. Scientific studies will be accepted only if they fit your political agenda! Look at Jeremy Abbott! Who would dare to voice different voices that you don't want to hear next time?!!! Abbott is supposed to be one of your own if the rummors are truned out to be right. But no, you won't accept any different voice.

The difference is that Christians who distort studies for nefarious ideological aims are not arrested. Jeremy Abbott was not arrested for voicing his opinions. If he had done so say in Red Square, he very well might have been. Freedom of speech means you get to voice your opinion. But it also means someone else can point out just how foolish that opinion may be. That's a very very very very very different thing from arresting someone who speaks out against an unjust law--because the very act of speaking out violates that law.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Fortunately, Bluebonnet is not the only person who reads the posts here. Perhaps someone else will read a thread like this and realize you should never just blindly accept so-called "expert opinion." Look at what any particular "expert" is saying, what conclusions she/he reaches and, most importantly, how those conclusions were arrived at. Use logic, reason, thought. Don't be swayed by emotion. Keep an open mind.

That goes both ways, doesn't it?!
 

WeakAnkles

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
If you mean you should test the conclusions reached by any "expert," then I wholeheartedly agree. If by "both ways" you mean one should embrace blindly accepting "expert opinion," letting intellect be swayed by emotion and rigidly adhering to a closed viewpoint, then no, I don't think one should go both ways at all.
 
Top