This is the prompt:
How might family dynamics differ in gay or lesbian families? What additional challenges do you see for gay or lesbian families in society? What can be done as a society to reduce these challenges?
You guys got any good suggestions/resources I could use?
I don't want to get kicked out of school, but don't want to "go with the flow" on this bs.
Other urls found in this thread:
rightwingwatch.org
archive.is
washingtonpost.com
archive.is
whatweknow.law.columbia.edu
archive.is
advocate.com
dailykos.com
archive.is
thedenverchannel.com
jesusneverexisted.com
twitter.com
Evidence and counter evidence, remember to research how validity and reliability are defined.
Pic related, find the source, find the secondary study that proves it's reliability (but not validity) and then discuss the counter evidence and compare its validity, in which the answer is "poor" because most counter studies were simply case studies basically.
>gay parents? Children seem healthy, have a tick
You will die a horrible death.
lol that shits been debunked dozens of times over
...
Have a lawyer contact the school. Sue them for emotional distress, $2 million
Debunked means counter studies in a similar manner, which means that they must have both control groups and testing groups of greater than 100 each, a low number is given because finding these families is challenging which is why homosexuals offended by this research abuse this fact to argue its invalidity.
The study has been performed about three times, this proves its reliability. The actual counter study that was more than massive case studies did not have a control group and therefore has absolutely zero validity.
>but funded by Christian fundies
So what? Pro-gay research is funded by Marxists who haven't realised this agenda is to replace individualistic Germans, Celts and meds with collectivist Slavs, Arabs and east Asians. You think you're clean of bias?
Debunked means the sample is flawed because 1/3 of the kids supposedly raised by gay parents were not actually.
Pretty much this but I thought it was something like 2/3ds of the families studied weren't actually gay and shows little more than the fact that divorce tends to lead to negative consequences for kids in the future. That and the overrepresentation of ascribed "lesbians." Point being, lots and lots of statistics sins committed to produce the figures.
>rightwingwatch.org
>archive.is
>unreliable because they were hungry for participants
I've already disputed this.
>zero mention of counter studies
Basically, fake science. This isn't how the scientific method works, until there's a more valid, more reliable counter study the original study remains authoritive.
>washingtonpost.com
>archive.is
>whatweknow.law.columbia.edu
>>This threat to the validity of research inferences is particularly challenging for studies that focus on a very small group of interest, such as some racial minory groups, atypical families, a
Literally "you're wrong because you didn't virtue signal." This is not an argument.
>>approximately one-third—alsonever lived with their same-sex parentsorlived with them very briefly.[emphasis original]
Why is this number inconsistent? Is it one tenth or a third? No, I think it's "zero" and they're arguing living with your parents on the weekend doesn't count.
You are literally using misandrist court systems as an argument.
False number.
Is it 1/10 or 1/3? Because it's 1/10 in your first article.
Also, where the fuck are my counter studies? You can criticise all you want but it's still unscientific until there's counter studies.
Whatever, OP is a fool if he doesn't represent both sides impartially, equally and fairly. Have zero bias, have zero conflict of interest, and you'll be allowed to say whatever you want.
About 1/3 participants in the study did not actually live with their gay parent.
Advantage: same sex couples dont need to spend as much on clothes bc they can just share. Then complain about how straight couples should get government assistance since they are forced to buy TWO wardrobes
But were raised by them regardless, how dare you invalidate any man's parenting experience, especially when it's sullied by divorce and postmodern family values.
You dishonest piece of shit.
The survey asked if they were ever raised by their gay parent and 1/3 said no.
write it as at thought exercise, you don't have to believe it
That's not what the 1/3 statistic means! You just redefined it and moved the goalposts.
And where the fuck are the counter studies?
Awesome, thanks!
I don't know what relevance "counter-studies" are when 1/3 of the data doesn't apply.
It claims kids were raised by gay parents, many were not.
You poor bastard.
Because even your articles admit finding cases is difficult and that makes it so dishonest to criticise the sampling techniques. You haven't realised this because you're not STEM, but you've lost this argument hard.
Without counter studies, you can't still be following the scientific method if you call something dismissable. You clearly have an agenda to prove this wrong, which is why no one is believing you.
I have no agenda. I do not care what homosexuals do just so long as science is respected as science.
1/3 of the results do not apply. The study claims to survey kids who were raised by gay people. 1/3 were not actually ever raised by gay people.
No, 1/10 were never raised by gay people and simply had a gay parent.
1/10
1/3 are those not currently living with their gay parent full time, doesn't mean they don't live with them every other weekend.
Why are you being dishonest?
>it's authoritative!
>m-m-muh counter studies
You can't call any study with systematic flaws authoritative, ever. It doesn't matter if there's not anything better; it's better to treat an issue as if you know nothing about it rather than believing bullshit that came from one shitty study.
I don't need to know what's right (true) to know that a shitty study is wrong (too uncertain to be useful, although not necessarily). Likewise, no counter-study is required to show a shitty study is useless.
>conflict of interest
Conflict of interest doesn't mean jack shit if what someone says is true. Saying otherwise is the ultimate ad homenin
>both sides
Weasel words. There is no "both sides", only the truth. Any assertion that scientific studies cannot accurately reflect the truth has no basis.
Fancy way of saying build a argument with your facts and have them try to use their retarded facts to argue with you.
*not necessarily false
1/3 were asked if they ever lived with their gay parent and replied no.
See:
If they lived with them every other weekend they would have likely answered yes to the question of if they had ever lived with their gay parent.
This post is not informed about the scientific method and should be ignored.
I have no argument, just a genuine respect for science. Unfortunately, it is authoritive until there's a counter study, this is how the scientific method works.
>""decolonising"" science for muh feels
>implying studies like that don't influence legal decisions
You can't "muh feels" your way out of child abuse, you can't unmess up a child you taught that gay culture is a real culture. You can't remove a permissive attitude towards meth.
>if I make it vague it'll seem I'm right
No, stop.
Children grow up healthiest with both male and female live on role models. No child can be healthy with only one gender role models or that only see their other gender role model (your sister? your brother) once a month.
Bigendered parents raise healthier children. This has not been debunked.
That is not vague. 1/3 of the study's data does not apply to its conclusions.
The study was flawed and now you are just ignoring it.
It is not authoritative if you have to throw out 1/3 o the data.
The study claims raised by gay parents as if all the kids in the study were either raised by 2 gay parents or 2 straight parents when that is not true.
if you get kicked out if school, just sue their ass.
I'm not talking about using feelings I'm talking about getting them to accept they are retarded through their own Thought process that's how you untamed these people, it's literally like a switch when it happens.
>No child can be healthy with only one gender role model
Really? It's actually, like, physically impossible?
How does that even work?
First post is some stastistics from a fraudelent organization who just made up their statistics. Just google the name of the organization if you want to see this. You're basically telling us the only arguement against gays having children is to invent lies.
>implying studies like that don't influence legal decisions
They certainly tried but failed:
Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.
The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.
Regnerus’ research made waves for another reason. It had the massive weight of a religious conservative money and marketing machine behind it, and it quickly became clear that the study was only incidentally an academic product. After concerns mounted that the peer-review process might have been rushed, both the publishing journal and independent parties launched investigations. Two hundred social scientists signed a letter citing “serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.” The journal that published the paper commissioned an audit assessing problems with the peer-review process. The audit found “serious flaws and distortions that were not simply ignored, but lauded” in the review process. It found blatant conflicts of interest in that “all three of the respondents to these papers have ties to the Witherspoon Institute,” the conservative religious organization that funded the study with roughly $700,000. Referring to the Regnerus study and a companion piece, the audit concluded that “neither paper should have been published.” In a separate interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Darren E. Sherkat, the designated reviewer, dismissed the entire study as “bullshit.”
Scholarship has to be funded by someone. But disclosures and transparency are supposed to let readers know this. Instead, Regnerus was caught lying about the role of conservative funding in his work. In the study, Regnerus writes that “the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.” Yet in emails obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, Regnerus flatly contradicts this claim, showing Witherspoon was intimately involved with shaping the study. Regnerus wrote that he would like “more feedback” from Witherspoon’s president about the study’s “boundaries,” “optimal timelines,” and “hopes for what emerges from this project,” and he refers to a meeting hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, in which key supporters of Regnerus’ study discussed the need to generate research to help oppose gay marriage. According to live blog reports of today’s testimony, one of Regnerus’ emails asked what the study’s supporters “expect” from his research.
They have no standard of which to set that gender, so women without fathers have low or strange standards for men (sometime with inverted standards) and men without mothers can be abusive or men without fathers can be unsure how to act in romantic relationships, further contributing to their abusiveness.
The role of role models is widely accepted as important and cannot be replaced by feminine men or masculine women. You need a real man and a real woman.
They've got an agenda though.
More than 100 studies have shown differently:
www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf
Regnerus clearly had an agenda as did the people funding him.
Again, I only care about the ones with samples rather than case studies and ones with control groups. Very few what you linked aren't circumstantial, cherry picked case studies.
You can't tell me it's invalid because agenda when you have nothing and pretend you do.
The debunked parenting study authored by University of Texas associate professor Mark Regnerus — which claimed that parents who've had a same-sex relationship are lesser-quality parents than those who are married heterosexual couples — was commissioned by a right-wing think tank with the intention of swaying upcoming decisions regarding marriage equality at the Supreme Court, reports The American Independent in conjunction with The Huffington Post.
In a review of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the Independent's Sophia Resnick discovered that the antigay, right-wing Witherspoon Institute "recruited a professor from a major university to carry out a study that was designed to manipulate public policy. In communicating with donors about the research project, Witherspoon's president clearly expects results unfavorable to the gay-marriage movement."
Resnick notes that the family structures study was rushed through the academic review process, as it was submitted for publication before Regnerus and his team had finished collecting data.
And from the beginning, Witherspoon president Luis Tellez made it clear to Regnerus that he wanted results published in time to submit them as evidence to the Supreme Court while it considers two cases related to same-sex marriage; Windsor v. U.S. challenges the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry contends that California's Proposition 8, which rescinded marriage equality, is unconstitutional.
"Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible," Tellez wrote to Regnerus in an email obtained by the Independent. "It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court,"
Even the editor of the journal that published the results of the Regnerus study told Resnick he resented the information being used to weigh in on a matter of "civil rights, i.e., a legal question, not something to be 'resolved' by empirical research."
Just one day after the results of the controversial parenting study were released to the public, the research was used — and misrepresented — in a federal court brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The study's author has also admitted to faulty data, noting that his study compared married opposite-sex couples with children to parents who said they had ever had a same-sex encounter, but many of whom were single parents. In fact, the study only included two households headed by stable, two-parent, same-sex couples.
That doesn't make the findings of the Regnerus study valid.
There were only 2 actual kids raised by 2 gay parents in his thousands of cases.
>I'll just outright lie, that'll convince people
That is not lying. There were only 2 cases of kids raised by 2 gay parents the entire time in the whole study. Most of the kids in the study were raised by families that started out with straight parents who then divorced when one partner came out as gay.
I have posted tons of info supporting my conclusions.
...
Does this mean lesbians are 15 times less likely to molest a child?
The (((parents))) burn in hell are degenerates.
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
dailykos.com
only virgins can get married.
>Have to write a paper on gay marriage
Tell them your are muslim and cannot support gay marriage.
See if they are willing to press the issue.
Or just tell them you are christian and threaten to sue if they persist. You cannot force someone to participate in an event that's against their beliefs.
Write how it's destructive for society. How we've lost touch with biological foundation of life. How it erodes traditional marriage and gender roles. The relationships between gays and pedophilia.
Muslims support gays more than Christians do.
>Muslims support gays more than Christians do.
Check flag. You're living in denial. Interesting how you chose to attack christianity in your reply.
Religion Of Peace: Muslims Toss Gay Off Building.
I don't like either?
Point out how the definitions of gender and sex are essentially the same, with gender's definition being wholly dependent on the definition of sex. Then point out that attempts at embracing gender fluidity are actually nothing more than biolpgical appropriation, and lead to conflicting social guidelines in the most important pillar of society; the family unit.
Christians don't hate gays as people, they just don't condone lifestyle.
Muslims will kill you no questions asked.
If Sharia law ever gets a foothold in this country you are doomed my friend. The LGBT community better wake the fuck up. These fuckers don't play games.
Christians hate gays as people. Not all, but many evangelicals do, especially older people.
Sharia is not even close to getting a foothold.
Christians used to kill gay people.
I don't have to like Christians because they stopped killing us. They still try to sabotage our rights.
>this family
>one decent looking dude
>one overweight dude
>one south-eastern asian adopted daughter
>one south american adopted daughter
wtf is this even meanings?
That's how it all starts. Ignore the obvious threat based on events that used to happen. How many christian people do you know? I'm guessing none. Sharia law is coming because nitwits like you think if you play nice they will too. Dearborn michigan is predominately muslim now. Islam is a cancer.
>I don't want to get kicked out of school, but don't want to "go with the flow" on this bs.
what's the point of having an opinion if you don't express it?
Fuck this faggot liberal shit.
Fuck off faggot.
>I don't want to get kicked out of school, but don't want to "go with the flow" on this bs.
explain how the most concerning element is the ability for wealthy families to merge their estates without need for women
That's why I voted Trump to reduce Muslim immigration. Doesn't mean I want Christians trying to take my rights either.
You have to be 18 to post here.
You are a genius. Lefty minds will explode.
If only you didnt hate the knowledge of God so much you wouldnt have become a sodomite. Read the last half of Romans 1 king james to read the attributes of yourself and your sodomite peers. Our governments are not killing you now because they are getting ready for the antichrist but you will suffer the second death. If there is anyway that you can believe that Jesus is the son of God and also God and you trust wholly in him for the forgiveness of sin and salvation from hell, you would be saved and cured of your sodomy instantly.
Channel your inner liberal and write a paper in your best SJW impression. It doesn't matter what you write, they want to hear a certain opinion and you can either provide it or not. I just see it as an opportunity to study the opposition in a way.
Here's my ideas for it and use them if you need to:
>Children raised in gay or straight families growing up with a sense that there is something wrong with their family due to them being incongruous to families they see in the media (ie. nuclear family)
>Go on to talk about gender roles in parenting and how they are socially constructed
>We can push our culture and society in a more progressive direction in order to dispense with any stigmas surrounding gay families
>more Modern Families etc.
>Additional challenges for gay couples in society are operating in a society designed for straight couples. Fewer institutions in society to support gay couples in a variety of ways like there are for straight couples.
The first word of your paper should be 'Fagots', everything after that is just about meeting the sizing requirement of the paper.
>knowledge of God
Well I know that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and you have no actual evidence that he did outside of historical fiction.
Jesus = Roman invention
Go to library and get Opposing Viewpoint series.
Enjoy your satanic world that allows a reprobate to exist in these end times and even more, is promoted in the mainstream by jews everywhere. The day of wrath is coming. You will regret hating God and the knowledge of him.
>Still believing in a Roman invention
>Well I know that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and you have no actual evidence that he did outside of historical fiction.
And what evidence do you have that he never existed?
Citation needed. Because you say you "know".
...
Nice argument.
It's up to me to prove he existed. But you offer no proof otherwise.
I guess that's the reality of trying to understand someone who's confused about their own sexuality and it's intended purpose. And also which bathroom to use.
You are making the claim that he exists. I am not.
>You are making the claim that he exists. I am not.
Show me the post where I made such a claim.
So you agree that he is historical fiction. Ok, moving on.
Facts are stubborn things. You can tap dance around it all you want but it doesn't go away. That's one reason suicide rates are so high among the gay community.
Jesus existing is not a fact tho
Jesus doesn't exist because you said so is not an argument.
SUBTLE REDPILLS
SHOW DAMNING STATISTICS, THEN MAKE WEAK ASS JUSTIFICATIONS THEN EVEN MORE DAMNING STATISTICS AND REPEAT
Just write that adoption is immoral and all unwanted children should be aborted.
Anidotally I worry less about the "non-traditional" families that bring up kids of both sexes. Our neighbors, though generally nice people, clearly hate men. They are a family of four, all female. Even the dog and cat are female. My daughter is invited to their parties. My 10-yr-old son? No. And they will present some pretty prepoaterous excuses why he cannot be included. The truth is they hate men, and teach their daughters to mistrust/hate men by their actions. The surly ugly fat daughter will likely be a lesbian too. But the athletic beautiful daughter will maybe not. We'll see. They have their own social clic around softball in which both daughters play. I feel bad for the uglier one. Under the right parenting I think things could be different for her. The two male parent family I know of have twins, one boy and one girl. They are growing up totally well adjusted. Clearly not abused. All above board. But the families with two male parents and only male kids? Idk, pedophila risk.
...
Add a ninth panel to this graphic with two gay guys in tuxedos with the caption "marriage."
