Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
(Dan, are you just updating SLOG to irritate the HICBIA? Go swimming or take a walk on the beautiful sandy beaches for god sakes. Enjoy!)
But really, Dan, you're on vacation - every time you log in/use one of your electronic devices, that just puts you one step closer to Terry instituting a complete and total ban on you having access to them. Don't abuse your tech allowances - and for goodness sake thank Terry that you're not in the fog bank that is currently enclosing the city.
Care to link to the study in question, or do we just take a comedian turned politician and a hate activist (thanks Rick Santorum for hitting that particular nail directly on the head) like Mr. Savages word for what this study says?
@1
Be careful with that one. Mr. Savage, Mr. Constant and Mr. Goldstein all repeatedly prove that logic and reason are definitively not the your friends. Comes to close to having to deal with reality, anathema to the average progressive.
(And here I thought I'd have one less distraction for a while when you went to Hawaii.)
does not present data that could lead to that conclusion.
Any homosexual 'families' meeting the definition in the study would have been a tiny part of the overall sample.
It would not be statistically possible to conclude that the members of that tiny subset of the whole sample met the criteria of the entire group.
but don't let the facts spoil your fun......
He's good enough, he's smart enough, and everybody likes him (except Republicans).
stuff it.
Danny sneaks off to the bathroom with his laptop to wank off to pictures of Rick Santorum.
don't be judgemental.
That said, this sounds like something I'd greatly enjoy seeing...
(Now back to the beaches with HICBIA!)
For a self-proclaimed 'Christian', you sure do spew a lot of vicious hatred on these here innernetz... I really don't think Jesus would approve.
@12: You can parse out any subgroup and make that statement. As in: "Methodists are such a minority, that this probably doesn't apply to them." Or African-Americans. Or almost whatever group you choose.
Bottom line: The group that the study was making conclusions about includes same-sex couples. And as they say, "Further study is warranted."
I think further study has been done, though, and has explicitly found that children of same-sex couples are just fine. Don't have references handy. Anybody?
What is not supported in objective reality is any statement that this study supports the idea that children of opposite-sex parents are better off in the ways cited by the homophobes than are children of same-sex couples.
And just like that religious conservative you get your ass handed to you every time.
The Mariners got their asses handed to them. The Sounders did as well. This is because an objective standard of who won or lost is present.
You simply concurring with what someone else said and not with what I did meets no such standard.
Hope this helps you navigate that confusing world of, well, reality.
@18
I'll answer that first when I'm wrong, and second when I give a damn about the capricious winds of public opinion. Right or wrong, truth or falsehood, are not poll driven in case you didn't know.
Nor have I written anything hateful. I merely asked that someone using a study to support his position cite the study. Didn't seem that irrational a request to me...
As for reality, as long as you keep thinking your opinions are facts you shouldn't lecture others about what's reality and what isn't.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_1…
There is nothing in this study to contradict the numerous studies that conclude same-gender parents are every bit as good or better at raising healthy, happy kids. Focus on the Family lies. Duh.
Thanks for the link Suzy. (I had to join to view.)
"The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous," playing with toys for both boys and girls.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u…
Maybe this was the study they were referring to at the hearing but there you have it. A quote:
"So to assess that adjustment the researchers enrolled 154 lesbian mothers who conceived through donor insemination in the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study between 1986 and 1992.
Their 78 offspring were interviewed and completed questionnaires when they were 10 and 17 years old. Their parents were interviewed and completed checklists at the same time.
Gartrell said the study is ongoing, with a 93% retention rate to date.
She and Bos found that lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-old children significantly higher in social, academic, and total competence than typical American children, as compared with Achenbach's normative sample of American youth.
They also had significantly fewer social problems, and less rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts, the researchers wrote."
" found that lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-old children significantly higher...."?!
the lesbians got to rate their own kids?
Really??
And they rated them "higher"???
SCIENCE!!!!!
The study @27 compared children living with married parents to other family structures.
Only one state in the nation, and only for a few of the years in the study, allowed homosexual marriage.
The study says NOTHING about how good homosexual parents are.
>>>At the time the study was conducted there were virtually no same sex married couples in the country.
“I would think that the study when it cites nuclear family would mean by a family headed by husband and wife,” Minnery said.
>>> a reasonable conclusion, since when the study was conducted the only parents who could be legally married to each other were husband-wife.
But you Liberals have your fun.
Goodness knows you have little enough to celebrate....
Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjus…
"The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition."
They did not.
Legally they could not.
Thus any homosexuals in the study would have been grouped in the non-nuclear "alternative" family structures that rank poorly compared to the nuclear families surveyed.
Did Danny even read the study before he posted the video?
vitriol?
we confess we dislike seeing assclown bafoonery being passed off as fact.
how about you
FYI-
It isn't up to those who want to retain the status quo to prove that no problem exists.
It's up to those who want change to state the problem, prove the statement, suggest a solution and prove the solution works.
Why Focus on the Family doesn't just say "you prove gay 'families' work or are needed, don't ask me to do so" fogs me a bit.
If Mr. Savage or any other poster here, or Al Franken want to alter the status quo the burden of proof is on them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/071…)
You don't like it that someone who shares your opinion got proven wrong. That's what this is about.
As for whether gay families work, you may have noticed that homosexuals are allowed to adopt children and, according to many studies, provide good homes. If you have a problem with that then the burden of proof is on you to explain why.
A diligent fact checker such as yourself should be able to find the original citation made by Mr. Thomas Minery, and verify whether or not the study says what Senator Franken says it does, before casting aspersions upon his character. I know that Skepticism sounds like all it requires is contradiction, but in fact it is a bit more rigorous than that.
Liberals are so cute when they're mad! Try to follow this, if you can. I don't cast aspersions on Frankens character. I don't know the man, he doesn't represent my state, so I could care less about him. That his sole qualification for public office is his career in comedy is just a fact, not an aspersion.
Mr. Savage posts a claim based on the clip he links. That claim is based on the contents of the study Franken and Minery were debating. Burden of proof is on him to cite the link if he's going to use the study to support a conclusion.
Those saying that family means what it always has, not whatever someone thinks it ought to, have to prove their point. Those defending the status quo don't have to prove anything. Experience and history do that for us.
"In fact I have an appointment to go paint a kite with my son. In Italy. With my business partners."
At midnight? You paint kites at odd hours. But it's cool that your business partners are that involved with your family. Buon lavoro. Ciao.
I'm sure you understand how idiotic that entire post would appear to the rest of us. You do realize that the phrase "hand you your ass" is just a figure of speech, right? And that it doesn't necessarily mean "quantifiable defeat," as in the case of the poor, beleaguered Mariners? There is, in fact, no objective standard to the idea of one's ass being handed to them, because here in "reality," we aren't awarded points.
Thanks for the link.
As for the efficacy of gay 'families' I'll wait a generation or so before I accept too much on faith. Raising a child isn't an 18 year comittment, but a lifetime one. The effects of doing so don't show themselves at 10 or 16 or 20, but in the way the child lives out his or her life.
Nor do I find the absence of gender role modeling noted at 29 particularly a good sign. My son relies on my behavior as a man, father and husband to have some idea of what those roles mean. My daughter relies on her mother for the same things. In fact this is one of the most important reasons a family means a mother and father raising children.
Unlike many liberals I don't abhor the differences between the sexes. I'm a guy. I have a clear notion of what I think this means, and like being one. I didn't want to marry someone confused about what being a woman means to her or who didn't enjoy being a woman.
As for Senator Franken's qualifications, the fact remains that he was elected by the people of Minnesota. So you can't call it a "fact" that "his sole qualification for public office is his career in comedy". After all, you're the one who insists that the way the people vote trumps all else. At least you say that when the people vote the way you want them to.
How hard is this, really?
Dan Savage posted conclusions based on a clip, in which Franken appeared. It's up to Dan Savage to link the study, if his conlusion relies on it. I didn't mention Franken, except as the subject of the post, and the protagonist in the clip.
You have a liberal arts degree, don't you?
Nor do I question the validity of Frankens election. Lawyers, doctors, or plumbers can all be perfectly adequate leaders, if leadership is in their nature. If Minnesota is happy with their Senator presumably they'll keep re-electing him. If not they won't. From the state of Washington, I've got no dog in that fight in any case.
In my state Patty Murray is unfortunately one of my Senators. I vote against her whenever she's up for election, but I don't think her position less valid because she's managed to fool enough citizens to ensure re-election. That is, I respect the electoral process, even when my interests lose. I'd be curious if you give the same lecture to the conspiracy theorists and nuts who keep saying that George HW Bush 'stole' his elections. No? Hmm.
Social workers, scholars, and adoption agencies have followed the children of same-sex couples for decades and found that they turn out fine. Since you can't dispute that you now insist that you're going to "wait a generation or so" before you make your own personal decision as to whether those families "work".
How about your own son? I think we should wait a generation or so and see how he turns out before concluding whether or not your family works.
I really believe that there are well-reasoned conservative viewpoints (most of which I happen to disagree with), but you, sir, are just wallowing in your own intellectual excrement.
So your earlier sports analogy, like the rest of your argument, fails. Anyway, have fun pretending you're morally and intellectually superior.
ProTip: Every study I've seen shows that homophobia is decreasing from generation to generation. Enjoy your hatred and bile, Mr Dinosaur. I for one will enjoy the increased love and acceptance in the world. The kids are all right. Deal with it.
The question I continually ruminate over is that if you were really interested in debating the ill effects of parenting on children would you also not have to lump in divorce rates, substance abuse, adoption (by single adults), etc.? Why restrict yourself just to studies that prove or disprove that single people shouldn't adopt or be foster parents? Or that it should be illegal to divorce, because it clearly messes up the kids?
Plenty of behavior disturbs the development of children. I don't think there is any need to find studies proving that divorce rates, teen pregnancy, extramarital affairs, dead beat fathers are overall damaging to the development of children. The point is that these behaviors are, in a sense, permitted because the parties involved are heterosexual partners. Now, I am not saying that gay couples are simply seeking the same rights to act as poorly as hetero couples. I am just saying that your assertion that: "the efficacy of gay 'families' I'll wait a generation or so before I accept too much on faith. Raising a child isn't an 18 year comittment, but a lifetime one." is a fallacious one because there are clearly studies, though incomplete, that suggest otherwise.
Also, are you suggesting that if studies were done to prove that gay marriages are just as healthy as straight ones, that you would begin supporting them? I am not terribly sure your mind would change given a definitive study proving the efficacy of gay families.
Lastly, there are all kinds of families, there are all types of loving and supportive relationships that aid in the development of children that often have nothing to do with the mother and father. Sometimes we have to find our families or choose our families because, as is all too often, our heterosexual parents are unlovable, drug addicted, and evil people. Granting gay and lesbian folks the right to love one another, raise children and enjoy a legal and social commitment that straight people enjoy (and, in fact, take for granted) is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Not that it's news to you, SB, but you are one gigantic pompous ass. And you are, in fact, doing 'your side' no favors with your assy behavior on this board - why are you on this board again? Why do you come here, if everything you see offends you so deeply? Us idiot 'libruls' are just not picking up on the lessons you try so hard to teach us.. Maybe it would be better for your blood pressure if you just, you know, found somewhere else online to edjimucate the librul masses, since we Sloggers are such a backward case?
Just a thought... You enjoy your day, now!
Consider a family with a husband, wife and kids. Let's say that a blob of cognitive dissonance falls out of the sky, braining Dad and leaving behind a single-parent household. Apparently, what's left is not a family.
1) I believe this thing, therefore it is true.
2) If you don't believe this thing that I believe, it is up to you to prove that it is false.
3) I reserve the right to judge and discard any evidence as I see fit.
4) After you've presented your arguments and I've discarded them, I state that I will:
a) Do something work related.
and/or
b) Do something family related.
Note: #4 may also include location flavor such as "Italy" and/or "the park" and may include other non-named individuals such as "business partner" and/or "wife/son."
Missing the point. Big time.
The question is not whether same-sex couples raising kids are better than straight couples. It is certainly not whether ALL same sex couples are better than ANY opposite sex couples.
The question is whether same sex couples as a group are demonstrably WORSE at parenting than the WORST of straight couples. Because that's where the bar is currently set.
Even people who murder one of their kids, and people whose kids are taken away by the state, and people whose kids score the worst on any of these tests that FotF is worried about are not forcibly divorced by the government.
I'm certainly not advocating or excusing bad parenting, but people are pretending that there is some minimum standard of parenting that people have to meet in order to be validly married.
This study doesn't even show that gay parents are worse than the BEST straight parents. It certainly doesn't show that same sex parents don't meet the high standards set by the worst straight ones.
Because same sex couples have been raising kids, and are going to continue to raise kids, for years. So if you really care about the kids--supposedly--wouldn't you want them and their families to be treated as normally as possible?
And you're entirely correct that gay parents have existed for a very long time, and lots of studies validate our parenting abilities. I wish Franken had turned the CDC study around to help demonstrate why DOMA harms our children.
It pisses off seattleblues that the bigots actually are laden with the burden of proof to demonstrate just cause for treating my family as inferior under civil law. Good! It's about time.
A very accurate summation of Seattle Booze. You did forget how he attacks people with petty and condescending characterization but then claims innocence when called on the carpet about it. Oh, and he is also very good about playing the victim.
Never has someone written so much with so little content, as our little rightwing troll.
Franken: "Mr Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote 'Children living in their own married, biological mothers - with their own married biological mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier , had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physiclal, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty compared with children in any other family form'.
You cite a Dept of Health and Human Services study, that I have right here, from December 2010 to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. [Soft laughter from the assembled]. I would like to enter into the record, if I may - it actually doesn't say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes.
Isn't it true, Mr Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?"
Minnery: "I would think that the study when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife".
Franken: "It doesn't. [Louder laughter from the assembled]. The study defines the nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family. And I frankly don't really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you're reading studies these ways".
[ends]
1-
Your point?
2-
Yes, when you're asking all of society to change for a tiny, self selecting minority, you must prove the change is desirable. I'd have thought that fairly obvious. Ag
3-
As does every human being. Thinking human beings do it partly based on reason or the input of experts in whatever their consideration touches on. Liberals do it based on emotion or 'studies' or soft sciences like sociology or psychiatry.
If you're arguments boil down it 'It's not FAAAIIIR!!!' then yes, I'll sually discard them. I don't tolerate that argument from my kids, why would I waste time on them from an adult?
Couple basic justice with a Constitutional provision or inherent human right, and you may have an argument. As far as gays are concerned they chose their status, and have no such inherent protection based on that choice. That we treat all citizens as worthy of basic human rights is our boast, and I'm glad to live in a country which can make and uphold the boast. That one choice driven minority should have the right to set terms for everyone else is a bit more shaky.
4-
If you're looking for an apology for earning my living, you'll wait quite a while.
And I would never apologize for putting my family or friends before a bunch of anonymous posters on a blog. Again, I'd have thought this fairly obvious.
If you put this blog before friends, business or family, all I can say is that you have my astonished sympathy.
@65
I assume you refer to Mr. Savage. He's a petty vulgarian parroting talking points others coined without any ability to debate issues in any but the most obscene and worthless terms. I won't waste much time worrying about belittling the already microscopic.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2…
Since statistically married couples were overwhelmingly heterosexual during the study period the definitions don't really matter.
Statistically the number of homosexual couples both married and raising kids during the study period would have been insignificant. That Mr. Minery didn't respond this way is disappointing in the face of Senator Frankens own cherry picking of the study.
Even if the study author didn't intend this to reflect on how a heterosexual married couple is the best method for child rearing, that's exactly what it did demonstrate.
They have Faith (DAH DAHHHH!!!).
Of course my Faith is tied to the still small voice that is alive in the world now, not to the whims of interpretation that seize these people. I choose to believe in charity, hope, and grace. And, as a scientist, I choose to believe that the miracle of a universe that allows the anomalies of water, and therefor the possibility of life, is more than enough of a gift from God.
Peace.
oh wait, you are probably already gone again, so you can spend some time re-enforcing(infecting) archaic gender stereotypes on your special precious crotch fruits. 'cause that is really how you sadly roll.
"The question is whether same sex couples as a group are demonstrably WORSE at parenting than the WORST of straight couples. Because that's where the bar is currently set."
are you making a joke?
we can't tell.
if you girls are unhappy with homosexuals' third class status as parents you must blame Darwin.
because Mother Nature has rendered your rectums sterile.
you can 'love' all you wish but your perverted deviant pairings will never bear fruit.
if you wish to be parents you must abandon your perversion and play nice
or come hat in hand begging society to let you have some kids to raise.
what do they say, put a thousand monkeys with typewriters in a room for a thousand years and eventually one will compose a sonnet?
how about this; put a million homosexuals in a huge bed for a million- for a billion- years, and you will never get one baby.
two 13 year old hetero kids in the backseat of a car can do what all the homosexuals in the galaxy cannot- become parents.
and so, in your craven quest to imitate heterosexual institutions
(perhaps King Louie from jungle Book was gay?) here you come...
The asshole from FOTF made a claim, saying it was supported by the study in question. His claim is not supported by the study. Nor are any of yours.
Other studies, however, do explicitly refute his claims, as well as yours.
If you don't like their methods, I suggest you conduct some defensible and repeatable research.
But you have to stop cheating: In grownup research world, your null hypothesis can't be what you're trying to prove.
Your assignment is look up kinship selection.
Follow-up: sisters of gay men tend to have increased reproductive fitness ... I'm sure there's more ... find the references yourself, asshole, I have to go.
oh gosh you must not have read the study OR seen the clip-
the study said that children growing up with married parents do better.
there were no married homosexuals when the study was conducted.
homosexuals WERE in the study, however.
they were in the alternate groupings that the nuclear family was superior to.
wow you must be embarrassed.
correction-
...HETEROSEXUAL sisters of gay men...
"increased reproductive fitness ... "
well of course they do.
since no "reproductive fitness" was wasted on brother Biff there's plenty for sis....
self selecting data is fine, because it conforms to the paradigms of straight society. And all other data is suspect because heteronormativity rules out any other existances and realities...
O.K. Got it.
But then...
In this lens anything could be correct, just cut out the outliers basted upon arbitrary legal status.
Bigtime facepalm.
Someone didn't do his assignment. (Don't you hate it when the students who have the strongest, smuggest opinions about the day's subject are the ones who didn't do the reading and really don't know what they're talking about?)
KINSHIP SELECTION, asshole. Complex thought does seem to be challenging your stem, so maybe try to recruit some other parts of your brain.
It may be sad to think about, but all the evidence I've seen is that he is a lost cause. full of hate, irrational dumb hate.
SB is either an awesome troll or suffers from serious Belief Disconfirmation
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cach…
Also, putting on the tinfoil hat, The Stranger has been "employing" A. Birch Steen for years, why not these characters?
point still stands, though, that the fotf guys did not know the study's definition of nuclear family, thus bringing into question the conclusions drawn.
But that doesn't matter because the study did not define any category along those lines. Focus on the Family was wrong to portray the study in those terms, and for a similar reason it's wrong to portray it as supporting the opposite claim. This study simply says nothing at all about hetero vs. homo parents.
As you've noted before, plenty of other studies have a lot to say, and the consensus is clear. But not because of this CDC study.
I'm so happy for Franken and his work! I never got his sense of humour when I was a (little) kid watching him on SNL, but by the time he was on Air America I was able to laugh with him and learn from him.
I hope that he goes far in politics, he's the guy who can speak truth to power from a position of power.
I especially love his sports metaphors. Apparently he doesn't watch any sports because I've never seen a major sports game where one team ran off the field as soon as they realized they couldn't win.
The study compared Married couples to other family configurations.
During part of the time covered by the study there were no states that recognized homosexual marriage, and thus no homosexuals would have fit the study definition of 'nuclear' family.
The other years only one state allowed homosexual marriage.
Thus the sample of married 'nuclear' families in the study included (virtually) zero homosexual families.
Homosexuals were not excluded, as the study author said, but they would have shown up in the 'other' categories...