Gay parenthood

[McBell]

To suggest that mothers are worthless- that 2 dads are fine is not only against reproduction, but it also goes against studies that show children thrive best when raised by a mother and father.

:biglaugh:

Please present from a credible source a recent study that supports your claim.

 

[Drolefille]

We have seen, just in this thread, the knowledge of some ex-Catholics on these issues.....

Yeah the problem is it doesn't MATTER. Your diversion has been completely off topic.

Again I was being descriptive not prescriptive. And anyway, I'm comfortable with my knowledge, so your soft attempt at a slam is a miss.

 

[McBell]

This is not true. There have been studies which have been alleged to disagree, but they all have massive methodological flaws (like small sample sizes, non-random samples, and so on). Not that you'd know by watching the mainstream media.

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Now try from a credible source....

And no, the "Family Research Council" is not a credible source.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Now try from a credible source....

And no, the "Family Research Council" is not a credible source.

Now try not to just repeat fallacies. Either what he writes, and quotes from others, about these studies is true or not. He is not claiming to have done research himself, but to make use of it - and he cites his sources.

For instance he quotes from a survey of these studies:

The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.1

And even Charlotte J. Patterson who wrote the official statement on homosexual parenting for the American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate.

You would no doubt dismiss all sources that disagree with your preferred conclusions.

But at least you are not a bigot!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

And anyway, I'm comfortable with my knowledge, so your soft attempt at a slam is a miss.

Well that depends on whether your comfort is worth the confidence you put in it. As I don't know you, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, despite the track record I have come across from those making similar claims, including in this thread.

 

[Viker]

This is not true. There have been studies which have been alleged to disagree, but they all have massive methodological flaws (like small sample sizes, non-random samples, and so on). Not that you'd know by watching the mainstream media.

Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D. -- Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk

Guess what? If you scroll down after reading his garbage, you'll see my point. Outdated and discredited studies. And, you'll notice it was compiled and published by the Family Research Council, a highly conservative political right wing organization. So much for lack of bias on his part.

 

[Viker]

Now try from a credible source....

And no, the "Family Research Council" is not a credible source.

Haha! You beat me to it!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Guess what? If you scroll down after reading his garbage, you'll see my point. Outdated and discredited studies. And, you'll notice it was compiled an published by the Family Research Council, a highly political right wing organization.

What do you mean by outdated and discredited studies? Aside from the fact that this is just an unsupported assertion on your part, if you read my original comment, you will clearly see the context was the validity of studies that purport to show that homosexual parenting doesn't tend to be inferior for the child, which is discussed at the beginning of the work with reference to, and citation of, relevant studies and surveys. That article is a few years old, so it may the case many of these failings have been remedied by subsequent studies, which still show homosexual parenting is generally as good as heterosexual parenting for the child. But you haven't shown that.

My main point was simply that, if the studies with negative results for homosexual parenting are flawed (I don't know if they are), then so are the ones with positive results.

To simply dismiss sources whose views you don't agree with is childish and, probably, fallacious (there is some lee-way: we can't take the time to evaluate every crank. But this is a well sourced and written article by a credentialed author and dismissing it announces you are never going to take seriously anyone who disagrees with your position).

 

[Viker]

What do you mean by outdated and discredited studies? Aside from the fact that this is just an unsupported assertion on your part, if you read my original comment, you will clearly see the context was the validity of studies that purport to show that homosexual parenting doesn't tend to be inferior for the child, which is discussed at the beginning of the work with reference to, and citation of, relevant studies and surveys. That article is a few years old, so it may the case many of these failings have been remedied by subsequent studies, which still show homosexual parenting is generally as good as heterosexual parenting for the child. But you haven't shown that.

My main point was simply that, if the studies with negative results for homosexual parenting are flawed (I don't know if they are), then so are the ones with positive results.

To simply dismiss sources whose views you don't agree with is childish and, probably, fallacious (there is some lee-way: we can't take the time to evaluate every crank. But this is a well sourced and written article by a credentialed author and dismissing it announces you are never going to take seriously anyone who disagrees with your position).

It's from a political source. It's going to weave anything it can to support opposition to gay parenting. It can't be taken seriously in an objective light.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It's from a political source. It's going to weave anything it can to support opposition to gay parenting. It can't be taken seriously in an objective light.

This is, of course, just a dogmatic and fallacious attempt to dismiss viewpoints you don't agree with.

But at least you are not a bigot!

 

[Viker]

I can't find any actual credentials for Timothy J. Dailey, "PhD". What is he a PhD in?

 

[Viker]

But at least you are not a bigot!

Thank you. And bless your heart. You got something right.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I can't find any actual credentials for Timothy J. Dailey, "PhD". What is he a PhD in?

Don't know. I don't think it is that unusual not to be able to find his credentials. I cannot find any other mention of him. The part I was referring to was mainly him quoting from other sources, including the official statement on homosexual parenting from the American Psychological Association, where it is admitted the research showing homosexual parenting positively is greatly flawed (although these flaws are conveniently set aside by the lesbian activist author - so much for a neat distinction between political and non-political sources!).

Anyway, you didn't answer my questions about how these papers are out of date or discredited or show newer studies that show homosexual parenting positively and yet are not fatally flawed.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Thank you. And bless your heart. You got something right.

Well, I'm sure we'd never see you sticking to an unexamined belief whilst dismissing opposing views without even trying to understand them.

 

[Viker]

Well, I'm sure we'd never see you sticking to an unexamined belief whilst dismissing opposing views without even trying to understand them.

If a source is of a politically partisan backing, I have the option to dismiss it. In this instance, because your source is both religiously and politically bias, I will.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

If a source is of a politically partisan backing, I have the option to dismiss it. In this instance, because your source is both religiously and politically bias, I will.

No, you don't. That is clearly fallacious. Everyone is biased. Of course, if the source is clearly a crank or whatever, you might provisionally do so. But you give no attempt to show this. You don't get to dismiss sources simply because you disagree with their political or religious viewpoint.

And, of course, you completely ignore the fact that we are not talking about the whole article. We are talking about the quotations and citing of surveys, including one from a lesbian activist who compiled the American Psychological Association's official statement on homosexual parenting. It is quite obvious that your dismissal is simply fallacious, and the indicative of a dogmatic unwillingness to even consider other viewpoints. Or, in other words, bigotry.

Also, don't think I didn't notice you never supported your assertions about out of date and discredited studies.

 

[Viker]

The FRC is a hate group. They could tell me the sky is blue. I would still dismiss them.

 

[Viker]

You're the one making assertions and providing faulty sources. So find relevant objective sources to back your claims.

 

[McBell]

Now try not to just repeat fallacies. Either what he writes, and quotes from others, about these studies is true or not. He is not claiming to have done research himself, but to make use of it - and he cites his sources.

For instance he quotes from a survey of these studies:

The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.1

And even Charlotte J. Patterson who wrote the official statement on homosexual parenting for the American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate.

You would no doubt dismiss all sources that disagree with your preferred conclusions.

But at least you are not a bigot!

*yawn*
What fallacies do you claim I am committing?
Be specific, because merely whining about fallacies doesn't cut it.

 

[Thruve]

Why doesn't that article go more in detail about the research? Its all fluff..
meh. Too lazy to google this. Someone google it for me lol. Ill give you a frubie!!