 |
| Maggie Gallagher |
In a piece in today’s National Review, Gallagher repeats the lie that the AAP ignored scientific data in its statement:
Gallagher is not telling the truth. Or to put it another way, she is lying through her teeth. The other studies she mentioned (Marks, Sirota, and Allen) are merely cocktail canape.There are at least four reviews or studies in peer-reviewed literature that contest the claim that children do equally well with same-sex parents. (Regnerus, Marks, Sirota, Allen). None of which are mentioned by the American Academy of Pediatricians in their endorsement of gay marriage. They cannot cite a single scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal showing children with gay parents are better off if their parents are considered legally married. None of this matters. How serious are we about children’s well-being in this country?
Loren Marks did not create a study of same-sex households but rather a review of studies looking at same-sex households. His piece was considered to be a companion piece to the Regnerus study.
Dr. Theodora Sirota actually complained about how her work was being distorted to make the case against same-sex families.
Douglas Allen is a Canadian economist and a professor of economics who actually supported Regnerus’ work.
The big prize here is the Regnerus study. And that is what Gallagher’s lie entails. The AAP did in fact look at Regnerus’ work and destroyed it. On pg. 1378 or pg 6 of the link, starting in the third column, the AAP lists four reasons why the Regnerus study cannot be considered credible in terms of looking at children raised in same-sex households.
Aside from Gallagher and Brian Brown of NOM, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family have also tried to push the lie that AAP ignored credible research on same-sex households. Maybe it’s just me but I detect a note of fear in regards to the immediacy of these claims.
And for the life of me, I can’t figure out why of all of the briefs or statements supporting marriage equality for tomorrow and Wednesday’s upcoming Supreme Court trials, does there seem to be some fear regarding the AAP’s statement.
Whatever the case, the fear is hard to ignore. And that is good for us.
4 comments:
" They cannot cite a single scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal showing children with gay parents are better off if their parents are considered legally married."
Isn't that begging the question? Such studies could not be conducted without legalizing same sex marriage, so could only have been started in the last 12 years.
Of course, I doubt she could cite a peer-reviewed study that showed that the children of gay parents are better off if their parents relationship is not considered legal. Or that it is in any way better for a gay person to marry hetero just to have and raise children in a legal and approved relationship, as some would actually suggest.
I see 60 citations at the end of the APA article, and many are peer-reviewed publications. #47 would seem relevant.
So? Wadda expect from a single mother who spooks and pedals for big $change$$$ the lie that children deserve a mother AND A FATHER? Her entire life is a cha-ching advocate for inequality for everyone else but her and her ilk!
They cannot cite a single scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal showing children with gay parents are better off if their parents are considered legally married.
As Luke said, can't really study that.
But guess what? You don't need a study to say that something that is obviously and objectively better with no drawbacks is obviously and objectively better with no drawbacks. Marriage legally represented > not. Not a difficult equation.
But actually... I seem to remember you mis-referencing studies that prove children are better off if their parents are legally married. Um, oops?
None of this matters.
It really doesn't. Hang on, isn't this you fake study we're discussing?
Huh. You thought it mattered until your lies got rebutted.
How serious are we about children’s well-being in this country?
Excuse me, ma'am, are you not attempting to sacrifice that what trying to wield those children as a bludgeon?
You can keep on saying "think of the children!"--the rest of us will be over here actually thinking of children without feeling the need to narrate to you that that's what we're doing. Oh, and we'll also be doing other things. We can care about several things simultaneously.
What is she talking about? -- lots of briefs bring up the Regnerus study -- to pull it apart as the mush it is. Why, there's point by point refutation, and many of the people the BLAG and others quote have said "Don't use us in your mush."
The lies of NOM and BLAG and the FRC et al (the incestuous polygamy of the NO GAYS! movement.) are spelled out in countless briefs before the court -- it's rather hysterical -- because these briefs are filled with lies to the point of perjury. SCOTUS hates that, I'm sure.
Post a Comment