President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are acting as if love, marriage and families is important to a healthy life.  

It is.  It is a tragedy when a child, for whatever reason, is deprived of guidance from both parents.  Mothers and fathers play a vital role in their children's lives.  This tragedy is compounded when the absence of a father or mother is elective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are acting as if love, marriage and families is important to a healthy life.  

But only for straight people

Sorry, CB.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

My son is alive today because my wife and I loved him enough to ensure that a medical threat against his life was addressed and overcome.

That's your spin.  Pres. Nelson said nothing about "children surviv{ing} to adulthood."  

He was speaking about the necessity of love in general.  He's right.  

I think you are speaking in inaccurate absolutes.  How many people are raised "without being loved as a child,"  as in no love at all?

Consider this:

We know that the desire to love and care for others is a hard-wired and deep-seated because fulfillment of this desire enhances our happiness levels. In other words, expressing love or compassion for others benefits not just the recipient of affection, but also its perpetrator.

And what’s more, it appears that even small acts of kindness generate just as much happiness as do lofty acts. In an interesting set of studies, participants were either given $5 or $20 as part of an experiment. Participants in both groups were then asked to either spend the money on themselves or on others. Those who spent the money on others, it turned out, grew happier than those who spent it on themselves. More interestingly, the amount of money spent on others didn’t make a difference to happiness levels: those who spent $5 derived just as much happiness as those who spent $20. Michael Norton, one of the co-authors of these studies summarizes the deep-seated and universal nature of the need to love in his excellent TED talk.

If the need to love is hardwired and universal and is also a powerful determinant of happiness, how come many of us aren’t aware of it? Why, for example, don’t we respond to the question, “What would make you most happy?” with “serving others” of "showering love on someone" than with "money" or "being loved"?

And this:

  Quote

As a doctor, it’s my job to figure out what patients really need. Some need antibiotics. Some need pain pills. But everyone needs love.

During medical school I cared for burned children. One of my patients was a 3-year-old with severe burns over most of his body. His roommate, an older boy, had just burned one arm. Yet the older child withered in the corner while the younger one jumped all over the playroom despite his contracted and painful limbs. Why? The younger boy’s family kept hugging and kissing him. The older boy had no visitors.

 

Give both a read.

I don't know that we have much empirical data for people who go their entire lives without ever loving or being loved in return.  But in the aggregate, I'd say that such people do not last.  They wither.  For lack of . . . love.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Of course, the desire to love and be loved only applies to heterosexuals.  Those that are gay should be perfectly ok without connecting with a life partner, or love from their children or the opportunity to have any relations including hugs, holding hands, dating, kissing to those that they are attracted to.  Yet you have often made the case that gays are full participants in the plan of happiness.  When the very studies that you cite tell how critical close human connects are for the happiness and health.  You defend for days the wisdom of how the church deals with gays.  Yet here you are preaching a totally different message of the importance of the very relationships the church forbids gays to experience.  Did you have any thought for how your posts would be read by someone who is gay?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is.  It is a tragedy when a child, for whatever reason, is deprived of guidance from both parents.  Mothers and fathers play a vital role in their children's lives.  This tragedy is compounded when the absence of a father or mother is elective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yet every study that has been done has shown no significant difference between a child raised by gay parents or straight parents.  CFR there are tragic results for a child when raised by two gay parents.  I totally get that you support church leaders and their policies towards gay couples, but there is no basis for you to start claiming that somehow children are better off if their parents are heterosexual.  

I might also point out that the vast majority of gay adoptions are children whose heterosexual parents have abandoned. The richness, love, joy and happiness those gay parents give those children is hardly tragic.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course, the desire to love and be loved only applies to heterosexuals.  

It would be nice if you did not bear false witness against me.  I did not say this. 

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet you have often made the case that gays are full participants in the plan of happiness.  

Yes.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

When the very studies that you cite tell how critical close human connects are for the happiness and health.  

Yes.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You defend for days the wisdom of how the church deals with gays.  

I am reminded here of Acts 26:

Quote

1. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself:
2. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:
3. ... wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
4. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5. Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
6. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
...
9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
10. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

And D&C 121:

Quote

33. How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.
34. Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35. Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36. That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42. By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43. Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44. That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

The Church is working with the parameters set by God.  The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual behavior.  The unified voice of the prophets and apostles makes that clear.

I understand and respect that this is hard for you to accept.  That you don't accept it.

But you seem to be acting as if the LDS Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity are arbitrary, or just a fabrication.  That's simply too pat for me.  Too convenient.  We can talk our way in or out of essentially any doctrinal precept by asserting such things.  

The Restored Gospel was going to be hard in some ways.  We each of us are, in one way or another, to some extent, situated like the man described in Mark 10  (emphasis added):

Quote

17. ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Or the king of the Lamanites, Lamoni's father, in Alma 22 (emphasis added):

Quote

17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:
18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead.

We all of us have something that we may value more than our relationship with God.  Wealth.  Sin.  Pride.  I have my own sins to work through, so I'm hardly in a position to diagnose anyone else's spiritual health.  All I can do is think of scriptures like those above  And of John 6 (emphases added):

Quote

24. When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
...
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
...
65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66. ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

"The Jews then murmured at hims..."

"The Jews therefore strong among themselves..."

"This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

For some of the ancient Jews, the teachings set forth in John 6 were difficult for them to accept.  Too difficult, in fact.

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

For those who stayed, perhaps they too had a difficult time understanding and accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ.  But they stayed.  Perhaps because they had the basics sorted out.  

"Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

In our day, the Lord told Joseph Smith: "But this generation shall have my word through you."  (D&C 5:10).  I believe this applies to his successors as well.  As with their Master, the successors of Joseph Smith have had the duty of proclaiming revelations that are true, but also difficult for this generation to accept.  They are not perfect.  They have made mistakes along the way.  But their cumulative witness is compelling.  

The stumblingblock for the ancient Jews described in John 6 was teachings about Jesus being the "bread of life."

In 2018, the stumblingblock is, for some, the Law of Chastity.

I wish you well.  I really do.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet here you are preaching a totally different message of the importance of the very relationships the church forbids gays to experience.  

No, I am not.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did you have any thought for how your posts would be read by someone who is gay?

I was writing for everybody, so yes.

Again, I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yet every study that has been done has shown no significant difference between a child raised by gay parents or straight parents.  

That is not true.

Quote

CFR there are tragic results for a child when raised by two gay parents.  

Oh, come on.

Quote

I totally get that you support church leaders and their policies towards gay couples, but there is no basis for you to start claiming that somehow children are better off if their parents are heterosexual.  

Yes, there is.

Quote

I might also point out that the vast majority of gay adoptions are children whose heterosexual parents have abandoned.

I acknowledge that.  Children are better off with parents than without.

Quote

The richness, love, joy and happiness those gay parents give those children is hardly tragic.  

You are really reaching.

I think this article has some interesting bits:

Quote

Study the Studies- What We Know About Same-Sex Parenting
by Katy Faust | May 22, 2017

It’s difficult to unearth the truth with all the noise and fanfare surrounding the studies that purport to show “no difference” between children raised in the home of same-sex parents and those raised in the home of their married mother and father.

This is very true.  The "social sciences" are not very "scientific" these days.  Lots of politicization.

Your compatriots have done a stellar job of silencing voices who might speak in ways not popular amongst the LGBT community, or else punishing or slandering those who do speak out.

Quote

It’s also discouraging that in our highly educated, scientifically minded society many have accepted this claim without really understanding the evidence.  So, if you are a fan of data and research, here is an itemized review of every single study done on the subject of same-sex parenting: A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption. For those who don’t have the time to review this 120 page document, here’s the abstract:

Hoo, boy.  There's a lot to unpack here.

Quote

Quote

Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a detailed review of the social science literature in three parts:

• (1) stability of same-sex parental relationships,
• (2) child outcomes, and
• (3) child outcomes in same-sex adoption.

Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children. With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor. While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families…There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.

In short: the studies that show “no difference” often used poor methodology (non-random samples, parental (self) reporting vs. actual child outcomes, short duration, etc.) to reach their conclusions.

"Poor methodology" seems to be the order of the day.  Again, the "social sciences" aren't very "scientific" these days.

More in the next post.

[smac97]

Continued from previous post:

Quote

Methods Make All The Difference

This may explain why those “no difference” outcomes were so prevalent in the early same-sex parenting studies:

Quote

First, the participants were aware that the purpose was to investigate same-sex parenting and may have biased their responses in order to produce the desired result.

Second, participants were recruited through networks of friends or through advocacy organizations, resulting in a sample of same-sex parents of higher socioeconomic status than is typical of parents in a same-sex relationship generally.

Third, on average, samples of fewer than 40 children of parents in a same-sex relationship virtually guaranteed findings of no statistically significant differences between groups.

In other words, researchers would sometimes recruit subjects via posts on an LGBT-friendly site, state that they were doing a study on gay parenting, and then hand select 20-40 participants.  (Not exactly the unbiased scientific method that you learned about in high school.) In any field of study, such factors have a major impact.  But when you take into account the cultural/political landscape leading up to redefining marriage, it’s clear that something other than scientific inquiry played a role in the outcomes.  One analysis revealed that:

Quote

…studies which recruited samples of children in same-sex unions showed that 79.3 percent (range: 75–83) of comparisons were favorable to children with same-sex parents. In comparison, there were no favorable comparisons (0%, range 0–0) in studies that used random sampling. The evidence suggested strong bias resulting in false positive outcomes for parent-reported measures in recruited samples of same-sex parents.

Strong bias in sampling.  Not very "scientific."

Quote

Finding Random Participants is Difficult and Time-Consuming- That’s Why Most Didn’t Do it

According to the 2010 census data, there were 594,000 same-sex couple households in the United States- about 1% of all households.  Of those couples, 115,000 reported having children. That’s only 0.02% of households in the US where same-sex couples are raising children. Finding a population that small at random is not only cumbersome but also takes considerable time which was in short supply in the run-up to redefine marriage.

That .02% number really is striking.  

Quote

Simply finding 20 children with same-sex parents using random methods would mean beginning with a huge pool of participants.  Here’s a look at one study that did it- the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.  It analyzed data based on one of the most exhaustive, and expensive, ongoing government survey research efforts to date. In the “fourth wave” of evaluating the same students over a period of two decades, 20 children with same-sex parents were identified- out of over 12,000. Here’s what they found.

The outcomes shown in the graph above reveals that “no difference” actually meant “huge difference”.

Sadly, yes.  There does seem to be a very big difference.  

Continued in the next post.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But only for straight people

Sorry, CB.

That is a falsehood and no amount of winking takes away its falsehood.

[smac97]

Hmm.  For some reason I am getting an error on my laptop saying your connection to the server has been blocked in this server's firewall.

Perhaps I try to post too much at once. I am posting this from my cell phone.

I had some further comments about the article I linked to. I guess I will just invite you all to read it and it's linked content.

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It would be nice if you did not bear false witness against me.  I did not say this. 

Yes.

Yes.

I am reminded here of Acts 26:

And D&C 121:

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

The Church is working with the parameters set by God.  The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual behavior.  The unified voice of the prophets and apostles makes that clear.

I understand and respect that this is hard for you to accept.  That you don't accept it.

But you seem to be acting as if the LDS Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity are arbitrary, or just a fabrication.  That's simply too pat for me.  Too convenient.  We can talk our way in or out of essentially any doctrinal precept by asserting such things.  

The Restored Gospel was going to be hard in some ways.  We each of us are, in one way or another, to some extent, situated like the man described in Mark 10  (emphasis added):

Or the king of the Lamanites, Lamoni's father, in Alma 22 (emphasis added):

We all of us have something that we may value more than our relationship with God.  Wealth.  Sin.  Pride.  I have my own sins to work through, so I'm hardly in a position to diagnose anyone else's spiritual health.  All I can do is think of scriptures like those above  And of John 6 (emphases added):

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

"The Jews then murmured at hims..."

"The Jews therefore strong among themselves..."

"This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

For some of the ancient Jews, the teachings set forth in John 6 were difficult for them to accept.  Too difficult, in fact.

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

For those who stayed, perhaps they too had a difficult time understanding and accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ.  But they stayed.  Perhaps because they had the basics sorted out.  

"Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

In our day, the Lord told Joseph Smith: "But this generation shall have my word through you."  (D&C 5:10).  I believe this applies to his successors as well.  As with their Master, the successors of Joseph Smith have had the duty of proclaiming revelations that are true, but also difficult for this generation to accept.  They are not perfect.  They have made mistakes along the way.  But their cumulative witness is compelling.  

The stumblingblock for the ancient Jews described in John 6 was teachings about Jesus being the "bread of life."

In 2018, the stumblingblock is, for some, the Law of Chastity.

I wish you well.  I really do.

No, I am not.

I was writing for everybody, so yes.

Again, I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

All those quotes, yet NONE of them address the disconnect between the very fundamental need for love, human contact, family, children, being able to hug, hold, kiss, love connect with someone you are attracted to if you are gay.  When the prophet says gay couples are apostates, the thinking is done.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

All those quotes, yet NONE of them address the disconnect between the very fundamental need for love, human contact, family, children, being able to hug, hold, kiss, love connect with someone you are attracted to if you are gay.  When the prophet says gay couples are apostates, the thinking is done.

Ah.  Cheap shots.

I was trying to be civil, and had hoped you would reciprocate.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 23, 2018 by smac97

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not true.

Oh, come on.

Yes, there is.

I acknowledge that.  Children are better off with parents than without.

You are really reaching.

I think this article has some interesting bits:

This is very true.  The "social sciences" are not very "scientific" these days.  Lots of politicization.

Your compatriots have done a stellar job of silencing voices who might speak in ways not popular amongst the LGBT community, or else punishing or slandering those who do speak out.

Hoo, boy.  There's a lot to unpack here.

"Poor methodology" seems to be the order of the day.  Again, the "social sciences" aren't very "scientific" these days.

More in the next post.

Do you have an actual link to the studies you posted?  Was this study acknowledged by any credible organization besides a web site who states on their web site

Quote

 

Our Vision

Them before us exists to advance social policies that encourage adults to actively respect the rights of children rather than expect children to sacrifice their fundamental rights for the sake of adult desiresWe aim to equip all adults to defend the rights of children.

 

 

From the site you lifted the "study"

 

Quote

 

Our Vision

Them before us exists to advance social policies that encourage adults to actively respect the rights of children rather than expect children to sacrifice their fundamental rights for the sake of adult desiresWe aim to equip all adults to defend the rights of children.

 

What we do know about the study is that Dr Paul Sullins author of the paper cited in this article is a catholic priest lol Bias much? Of course hes going to write about how gays are bad for kids thats what religious extremists think. No wonder no other actual scientist is reporting statistics like these.

 

Come on SMAC. You are fishing in water that is hardly credible.  

 

How about some real science.

 

 

Quote

 

A 2002 review of the literature identified 20 studies examining outcomes among children raised by gay or lesbian parents and found that these children did not systematically differ from those raised by heterosexual parents on any of the studied outcomes.^[35]

In a 2009 affidavit filed in the case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Michael Lamb, a professor of psychology and head of Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University, stated:

The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. The studies specific to same-sex parenting were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions."^[36]

 

 

Yeah 20 studies published in leading journals that actually deal with child development not a religious bias web site who outright states its agenda driven content quoting a study done by a Catholic priest.  Great graphs.  But junk facts.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Do you have an actual link to the studies you posted?  Was this study acknowledged by any credible organization besides a web site who states on their web site

From the site you lifted the "study"

What we do know about the study is that Dr Paul Sullins author of the paper cited in this article is a catholic priest lol Bias much? Of course hes going to write about how gays are bad for kids thats what religious extremists think. No wonder no other actual scientist is reporting statistics like these.

Come on SMAC. You are fishing in water that is hardly credible.  

How about some real science.

Yeah 20 studies published in leading journals that actually deal with child development not a religious bias web site who outright states its agenda driven content quoting a study done by a Catholic priest.  Great graphs.  But junk facts.

Civility is not in the cards, I think.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  Cheap shots.

I was trying to be civil, and had hoped you would reciprocate.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I find your cheap shot of quoting endless scriptures that have NOTHING to do with what I posted about about the same.  

 

Want more real data rather than from an agenda driven web site?

 

 

Quote

 

According to a 2005 brief by the American Psychological Association:

In summary, research on diversity among families with lesbian and gay parents and on the potential effects of such diversity on children is still sparse (Martin, 1993, 1998; Patterson, 1995b, 2000, 2001, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). Data on children of parents who identify as bisexual are still not available, and information about children of non-White lesbian or gay parents is hard to find (but see Wainright et al., 2004, for a racially diverse sample)... However, the existing data are still limited, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Although studies of adolescent and young adult offspring of lesbian and gay parents are available (e.g., Gershon et al., 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Wainright et al., 2004), relatively few studies have focused on the offspring of lesbian or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood.^[40]

In 2010 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy stated:

Relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers, but those that exist find that gay men are similarly fit and able parents, as compared to heterosexual men. Available empirical data do not provide a basis for assuming gay men are unsuited for parenthood. If gay parents were inherently unfit, even small studies with convenience samples would readily detect it. This has not been the case. Being raised by a single father does not appear to inherently disadvantage children's psychological wellbeing more than being raised by a single mother. Homosexuality does not constitute a pathology or deficit, and there is no theoretical reason to expect gay fathers to cause harm to their children. Thus, although more research is needed, available data place the burden of empirical proof on those who argue that having a gay father is harmful.^[6]

 

^{You know it is not such a cheap shot when you willing ignore credible evidence simply. because you feel compelled to follow your church leaders.  Hence my remark.  Are. you really willing to dismiss the countless studies that have been reviewed and supported by the actual reputable}

 American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family   American Psychological Association:

Has accusing others of posting cheap shots now become your go to phrase when you don't really want to answer the questions asked of you?   

Edited February 23, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Civility is not in the cards, I think.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah I thought you would cave rather than pretend to stand behind such a bias driven study by a Catholic priest.

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah I thought you would cave rather than pretend to stand behind such a bias driven study by a Catholic priest.

What could we possibly add to a classic ad hominem fallacy?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah I thought you would cave rather than pretend to stand behind such a bias driven study by a Catholic priest.

First cheap shots, and now . . . taunts.  Incivility borne of anger, I think.  

I invite interested parties to read the article I linked to, and the links embedded within it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is not true.

Oh, come on.

Yes, there is.

I acknowledge that.  Children are better off with parents than without.

You are really reaching.

I think this article has some interesting bits:

This is very true.  The "social sciences" are not very "scientific" these days.  Lots of politicization.

Your compatriots have done a stellar job of silencing voices who might speak in ways not popular amongst the LGBT community, or else punishing or slandering those who do speak out.

Hoo, boy.  There's a lot to unpack here.

"Poor methodology" seems to be the order of the day.  Again, the "social sciences" aren't very "scientific" these days.

More in the next post.

Why rely on crackpot sources for your "evidence"? You don't have to make it scientific. In a scientific argument you'll lose every time. The evidence is against your position. Just make it about theology and no one can really argue against you.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why rely on crackpot sources for your "evidence"?

Sigh.  More ad hominem.

If you want to examine the data, let's do it.  Otherwise . . .

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You don't have to make it scientific. In a scientific argument you'll lose every time. The evidence is against your position.

Funny, then, that you and CB are reduced to taunts and insults and jeers, but no actual examination of data.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just make it about theology and no one can really argue against you.

It's not an either/or proposition.

Thanks,

-Smac