Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

    The so-called APA-study is rebutted as political correct lobbying.

    Mark Regnerus, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, has presented his new study not without attacks of do-gooders and political correct pseudo moralists. He was accused of research misconduct, but the University of Texas at Austin has concluded its investigation of Mark Regnerus and declared the associate professor of sociology not guilty of research misconduct during his controversial study of children whose parents had same-sex relationships.
    Christianity Today Gleanings: Mark Regnerus Cleared Of Misconduct in Research Involving Gay Parents

    Core statement:
    Children in gay marriages are massively unprivileged. They are oftener unemployed, less educated and were abused often.
    The worst results come from people who were raised by lesbian couples. 69 % of them are unemployed and 23 % of them were sexually abused.

    ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

  • #2
    Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

    I'm not really sure how to present this ... or if I even should present it ... but here goes my best effort:

    The research is older, but effectively says the same thing said in Sheldon's opening post. According to the American College of Pediatricians:
    Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family. This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent-child bonding.
    • Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. "Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p. 48.
    • Kristen Andersen Moore, et.al. "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002) pp.1-2.
    • Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45.
    • Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
    • Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children's Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
    • Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
    • David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.
    • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.


    Single parenting, fostering, adoption (etc.) are all valid responses, but kids raised in these environments typically face special challenges. Clearly, apart from rare situations, depriving a child of one or both biologic parents, as same-sex parenting requires in every case, is unhealthy.
    • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.
    • Schneider B, Atteberry A, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute;2005:1-42


    Children need a mother and a father. Biochemical differences between male and female are clearly evident in development of (gender specific) brain anatomy, psyche, and learning styles and two-gender parenting provides different and unique contributions to a child's development.
    • Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005).
    • Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995).
    • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.


    Studies that indicate "neutral to favorable child development from same-sex parenting have critical design flaws.
    • Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC;Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.
    • P. Morgan, P. Morgan Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
    • J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.
    • American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, EC, and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. "Technical report: Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 343. The Academy acknowledges that the "small, non-representative samples ... and the relatively young age of the children suggest some reserve."
    • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
    • J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129.
    • Ibid., pp.127,128.
    • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
    • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
    • Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos and Naomi G. Goldberg, "Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure" Archive of Sexual Behavior, 40 (2011):1199-1209, p. 1205.
    • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.


    There are considerable risks to children exposed to homosexual lifestyles, including:
    Violence is two to three times more common than amongst heterosexual couples
    • Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
    • D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
    • Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
    • "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
    • Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.


    Homosexual unions are statistically much more prone to dissolution than heterosexual unions
    • David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252-253.
    • M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
    • Schumm, Walter R. (2010) 'Comparative Relationship Stability of Lesbian Mother and Heterosexual Mother Families: A Review of Evidence', Marriage & Family Review, 46:8,299-509.
    • M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.


    Homosexuals report serial sexual partners, even within "committed" relationships
    • A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
    • Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
    • A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
    • "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
    • Marie Xiridoui, et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in "steady relationships" reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]


    Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,substance abuse, suicidal tendenciesand shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.
    • J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
    • Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
    • Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880.
    • Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
    • R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
    • Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
    • Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
    • Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.



    Seems to me the evidence is overwhelming

    ?


    • #3
      Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

      Interesting study.

      What really jumped off the page at me however was completly unrelated to the OP.

      Children whose heterosexual parents divorced before they were 18-years-old faired nearly as poorly as, and in a few cases actually worse than, children from homosexual families by almost every metric.

      On the surface that might not seem like such a big deal.

      But think about this in terms of sheer volume.

      There are probably dozens and dozens of kids from broken heterosexual homes for every one kid raised by a homosexual couple.

      Think of all the damage heterosexual couples are doing to America's children.

      Societally speaking, think of all the damage that heterosexual couples are doing to America.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

        Originally posted by soot View Post
        Interesting study.

        What really jumped off the page at me however was completly unrelated to the OP.

        Children whose heterosexual parents divorced before they were 18-years-old faired nearly as poorly as, and in a few cases actually worse than, children from homosexual families by almost every metric.

        On the surface that might not seem like such a big deal.

        But think about this in terms of sheer volume.

        There are probably dozens and dozens of kids from broken heterosexual homes for every one kid raised by a homosexual couple.

        Think of all the damage heterosexual couples are doing to America's children.

        Societally speaking, think of all the damage that heterosexual couples are doing to America.
        Irrelevant straw man, Soot.

        The topic is "Children in gay marriages are under priveleged" ... regardless of whether or not other children are also underpriveleged.

        The old schoolyard "well THEYYYY did it TOOOOO" rationale really doesn't work in the adult conversations. For some additional information on THIS topic, as well as some support for your irrelevant rejoinder, you can look up some of the research noted in my response, above.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
          The old schoolyard "well THEYYYY did it TOOOOO" rationale really doesn't work in the adult conversations.
          LOL

          You know, I actually considered throwing in a disclaimer to the effect that I don't really think my observation discounts in any way the comments made in the OP. But I figured we're all adults here so that wasn't necessary. Guess I was wrong. Apparently some people will nitpick any old thing.

          Anyhow...

          I'm not disputing the results of this study or any of the others that you provided. I'll just take it on faith that they're all right on the money.

          Thing is, I don't really care all that much about what other people do or don't do, even to their own kids (short of commiting criminal acts against them, of course), so it doesn't really matter to me all that much that gay couples fuck up their kids at a slightly higher (though still, by a number of those metrics, statistically insignifigant) rate. I don't have to live in those families so they're of little concern to me.

          I'll tell you what I am concerned about though, at least a little.

          The overall effects that families fucking up their kids has on society.

          I do have to live in this society, after all, and it stands to reason that the more emotionally fucked up people we have running around the more deleterious the effect tthat emotionally unstable people will have on our society (in terms of crime, social safety net abuse, lost economic productivity, and a host of other issues).

          So while a handful of gay couples fucking up a handful of kids every year is bad for me, half a million heterosexual couples fucking up half a million kids every year is a metric fuckton worse for me.

          I'll just let it drop there though.

          Like you said, this thread is about bashing gay people so I'll let y'all get back to that.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

            Yep, much too easy to get a divorce these days. Law should make them hard to get, as that helps society. And it would make people think more before they got married. Then we need to teach people that lust does not equal love. Different things. And that there is more important things than your instant self gratification. There are things much greater than your own pursuit of pleasure. That you really ain't special, at all, the world is full of "yous". So get over "yourself" and become a mature, sane adult.

            The problem today is we are worshipping our own self images greater than ever before. That has become society. And anytime that happens, society starts to rot, to decay and stink. And the great societals problems begin.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              Yep, much too easy to get a divorce these days. Law should make them hard to get, as that helps society. And it would make people think more before they got married. Then we need to teach people that lust does not equal love. Different things. And that there is more important things than your instant self gratification. There are things much greater than your own pursuit of pleasure. That you really ain't special, at all, the world is full of "yous". So get over "yourself" and become a mature, sane adult.

              The problem today is we are worshipping our own self images greater than ever before. That has become society. And anytime that happens, society starts to rot, to decay and stink. And the great societals problems begin.
              Out of curiosity how would you go about doing this?

              ?


              • #8
                Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                Yep, much too easy to get a divorce these days. Law should make them hard to get, as that helps society. And it would make people think more before they got married. Then we need to teach people that lust does not equal love. Different things. And that there is more important things than your instant self gratification. There are things much greater than your own pursuit of pleasure. That you really ain't special, at all, the world is full of "yous". So get over "yourself" and become a mature, sane adult.

                The problem today is we are worshipping our own self images greater than ever before. That has become society. And anytime that happens, society starts to rot, to decay and stink. And the great societals problems begin.
                Wow... two posts in two days and not a word about MNC or China.

                Keep it up Blue Doggy!

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  Out of curiosity how would you go about doing this?
                  Go back to the divorce laws before they were changed in the early 60s.

                  Get rid of the "me" ciriculum in schools. Teach citizenship and ethics in school once again. Stress social responsiblity as much as we used to stress saying no to drugs.

                  If you look around at what society stresses today, it is instant gratification, the pursuit of personal pleasure as the highest good, illicit sex, looks over character, and more.

                  Each human being is conditioned by the society that he is in. We are our conditioning. You cannot separate the person from society except as an intellectual concept. A person becomes what the society places value on. And what do we place our values on today? Is it different than say the 1950s and what came before that? I think it is.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                    Can we please keep the illicit sex?

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                      Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                      Wow... two posts in two days and not a word about MNC or China.

                      Keep it up Blue Doggy!
                      Yeah, I thought I would give those jack wagons a break since I have harped on it every since I joined here. I think they are very important, and are part of the root cause of our problems, but I am finally moving on! And giving up. Only a war will change the new paradigm. Otherwise, forget about it.

                      I guess now I will argue over those things that are superficial. LOL. Except for abortion. That sure ain't superficial.

                      Now what color of under drawers does obama wear again? And what was that, that was said about a special mormon underwear? Magical powers or something?

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                        Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
                        Can we please keep the illicit sex?
                        Only if you don't kill what you made. You wanta get a nut? Fine. But that brings a possible responsibility. You are no better than the lazy bums who will not work, and expect the taxpayers to take care of him so he can sit on his ass. The new societal value is responsibility for actions. So illicit sex if fine, just don't try to wiggle out of the accidents or if you get caught. And don't encourage others to be irresponsible. They need no help!

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          Go back to the divorce laws before they were changed in the early 60s.

                          Get rid of the "me" ciriculum in schools. Teach citizenship and ethics in school once again. Stress social responsiblity as much as we used to stress saying no to drugs.

                          If you look around at what society stresses today, it is instant gratification, the pursuit of personal pleasure as the highest good, illicit sex, looks over character, and more.

                          Each human being is conditioned by the society that he is in. We are our conditioning. You cannot separate the person from society except as an intellectual concept. A person becomes what the society places value on. And what do we place our values on today? Is it different than say the 1950s and what came before that? I think it is.
                          Which were what? Why were they changed? Was it because of a scotus case or just a general change in legislation?

                          "me" curriculum. what is that?

                          American government is a required course for all seniors in the high school i went to. Philosophy is generally not to taught to non adults because they take whatever you say as gospel (or whatever their parents say, depending) and don't think for themselves. They adopt someone's philosphy instead of considering several arguments and making their own. I'm also curious as to what you think "ethics" is, both the definition and what you want taught.

                          We still stress just say no. Kids go to dare classes. what more do you want?

                          Society is not limited to education. Are you going to go back to the Hays code for motion pictures? Bad guys must always get their comuppence etc? are you going to make church services mandatory? how are you going to go about wholly changing society?

                          Yes we are much different than we were in the 50's. Anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, protesting changes, desegregation, all kinds of things.


                          When I asked you how you would go about doing this I wanted specific things, not buzz words. You're not a presidential candidate, be a little more free with your ideas.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                            Originally posted by Sheldon View Post
                            The so-called APA-study is rebutted as political correct lobbying.

                            Mark Regnerus, Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, has presented his new study not without attacks of do-gooders and political correct pseudo moralists. He was accused of research misconduct, but the University of Texas at Austin has concluded its investigation of Mark Regnerus and declared the associate professor of sociology not guilty of research misconduct during his controversial study of children whose parents had same-sex relationships.
                            Christianity Today Gleanings: Mark Regnerus Cleared Of Misconduct in Research Involving Gay Parents

                            Core statement:
                            Children in gay marriages are massively unprivileged. They are oftener unemployed, less educated and were abused often.
                            The worst results come from people who were raised by lesbian couples. 69 % of them are unemployed and 23 % of them were sexually abused.

                            ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
                            The study is flawed ... simply by setting the control groups. I looked up reviews of the study and found a New Yorker article. To many bad reviews to read them all.


                            The Faults of Mark Regnerus's Gay-Parenting Study : The New Yorker
                            The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

                            S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
                            Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
                            Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
                            No

                            A yeseven a single romantic relationshipput the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations. (And what does that yes mean? Sex once in a bar? An infatuation from a distance?) Regnerus says that he chose this question because he doesnt want to get into sorting out whos really gayand that can be a complicated issue, to which he, unfortunately, has an absurd response. Because of how the study is set up, any stress to a child from living with a married man and woman, one of whom had ever had a same-sex affair of any kind, would be ascribed to having a gay or lesbian parent, and statistically erased from the analysis of mom and pop families. (Will Saletan and Ta-Nehisi Coates have good critiques of the study; Saletan points out that the study had conservative funders.)

                            It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians. Two hundred and fifty-three people said yes to question S7. A hundred and seventy-five said that their mother had had a relationship of some kind. As John Corvino notes at TNR, Only 42 percent of respondents reported living with a Gay Father and his partner for at least four monthsand less than 2 percent reported doing so for at least three years. Less than two per cent of those (two people, three?) said that their whole childhood was spent with their mother and her lesbian partner. On the basis of these distorted samples, Regnerus tells us that 28 percent of the adult children of women whove had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed and that the young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Expect to see those numbers thrown around. Keep in mind what they dont mean

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: New study proves: Childs in gay marriages massively unprivileged.

                              Yeah, the divorce laws were changed in the early 60s, as I read that at one time. Never looked into it, but I do recall when the "no fault" divorces came into being. This was part of the change, I reckon. Before that you had to have a really good cause for divorce and you had to prove it.

                              The "me" ciriculum is the social conditioning now done in schools to make everyone "special" when it's a damn lie. We are not created equal in reality. We teach kids the most important thing is self image, and we have turned into a nation of self centered, bratty adults. We are so fucking special in our self image that when someone cuts us off, we go into a rage, some of us. And this conditioning starts really early as parents today teach their kids they are more special than anyone else, which creates a sick self image. And when you get a horde of these people, you get a "me" society, at the demise of the "other". Only our own selfish desires have any importance in our lives and the society becomes like that. And since man is a social animal, this creates disorder and problems.

                              In so far as entertainment, the rating system is fine. But anything that is shown on tv should meet certain standards. We should not entertain ourselves with stories that glorify crimiinal behavior, violence, irresponsible sex and so on. Or rather, we should not entertains kids with that sort of trash. You look at the old crime stories from film and the crime never paid off, the bad guys never got away and they were punished for their behavior. Entertainment should teach the values that are valuable to society, not destructive of it. And we at one time had the good sense to know what bad entertainment wrought on society.

                              If we were not so easy to be conditioned these things would not be a problem. But we are all conditioned, and most people are not even aware of it. They think they are above conditioning, when that is clearly not the case at all. We don't need any additional help in being selfish. We need to teach against it. And we actually used to do that.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X