Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, September 22, 2012
Gay Marriage / 2012 / LGBTQITSLFA John Corvino: "Debunking the Regnerus Study"
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM
John Corvino's new series of YouTube videos is a godsend for supporters of marriage equality all over the country—but they're going to be particularly helpful for supporters of marriage equality in Washington state, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota, all states where marriage is on the ballot this November. John Corvino's entire series of Marriage Equality videos is here. For more info about John go to his website.
1
YOU LIE !
"Administrators conducted an exhaustive pre-investigation to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary -- including hiring a consultant who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the process.
After sequestering all of Regnerus's correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Scott Rosensweig, UT-Austin research integrity officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum to administrators, "None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth ... were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.
"Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted," Peterson wrote."
"Administrators conducted an exhaustive pre-investigation to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary -- including hiring a consultant who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the process.
After sequestering all of Regnerus's correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Scott Rosensweig, UT-Austin research integrity officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum to administrators, "None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth ... were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.
"Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted," Peterson wrote."
2
however the point of this episode is clear:
Researchers whose work reveals facts unpopular with homosexuals will have their professional reputations and careers attacked and smeared.
Why do homosexuals fear The Truth?
Why are they terrified of Science??
Researchers whose work reveals facts unpopular with homosexuals will have their professional reputations and careers attacked and smeared.
Why do homosexuals fear The Truth?
Why are they terrified of Science??
3
There doesn't need to be scientific misconduct in order for it to be a flawed study, anon. Scientific misconduct is things like falsifying data. There's no evidence that the author falsified things. It's just that it's poorly designed, and doesn't say the things that homophobes are claiming that it does.
4
However, we must thank Danny and John.
We never had heard of the study until 5 minutes ago.
"Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.
They also are more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."
yikes.....
We never had heard of the study until 5 minutes ago.
"Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.
They also are more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."
yikes.....
5
Danny,
Speaking of cherry picking data to get the outcome you want, shitty study design and teeny tiny sample sizes;
you should link John to that cute little video of Rob's you used to post.
In that little farce Rob eliminates all the homosexuals from the group of molesters, despite the fact that they had had sex with males, except for one poor soul.
Speaking of cherry picking data to get the outcome you want, shitty study design and teeny tiny sample sizes;
you should link John to that cute little video of Rob's you used to post.
In that little farce Rob eliminates all the homosexuals from the group of molesters, despite the fact that they had had sex with males, except for one poor soul.
6
@2
oh gosh, and we forgot;
If your publication or university
supports or publishes or employs
any researchers whose work reaches conclusions
displeasing to Queer,Inc.
expect that you also will be boycotted,
smeared,
attacked
and driven out of business.....
oh gosh, and we forgot;
If your publication or university
supports or publishes or employs
any researchers whose work reaches conclusions
displeasing to Queer,Inc.
expect that you also will be boycotted,
smeared,
attacked
and driven out of business.....
7
did you know that boycotting Jews was the first step of the Holocaust?
Danny, are we still boycotting Utah?
(because,
you know,
obviously it is the fault of UTAH
if California
votes to outlaw homosexual "marriage".
Twice......)
Danny, are we still boycotting Utah?
(because,
you know,
obviously it is the fault of UTAH
if California
votes to outlaw homosexual "marriage".
Twice......)
8
Also Danny,
please link again the study of Lesbian parents that you link every couple of weeks.
You know the one,
the one with the self selected participants?
The one where the lesbians get to pick to be in the study?
The one where the participants get to grade themselves about what nifty awesome parents they are?
The one with the wildly unrepresentative sample of lesbians who are much more affluent than the general population they are compared to?
The one that found that lesbian couples who planned ahead for the children they raised still divorced at a higher rate than the general population?
That one?
please, be a huckleberry and post it again.
we're sure John will simply LOVE it....
please link again the study of Lesbian parents that you link every couple of weeks.
You know the one,
the one with the self selected participants?
The one where the lesbians get to pick to be in the study?
The one where the participants get to grade themselves about what nifty awesome parents they are?
The one with the wildly unrepresentative sample of lesbians who are much more affluent than the general population they are compared to?
The one that found that lesbian couples who planned ahead for the children they raised still divorced at a higher rate than the general population?
That one?
please, be a huckleberry and post it again.
we're sure John will simply LOVE it....
10
The Chronicle of Higher Education is a newspaper and website that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty and Student Affairs professionals.
The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world.
In July it reported on the affair John misrepresents in this clip.
The article is long but you really should take the time to read it.
TITLE- An Academic Auto-da-Fé
>...A sociologist whose data find fault with same-sex relationships is savaged by the progressive orthodoxy...<
"Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.
Regnerus's offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That's it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex relationships. And now he is being made to pay.
In today's political climate, and particularly in the discipline of sociology—dominated as it is by a progressive orthodoxy—what Regnerus did is unacceptable. It makes him a heretic, a traitor—and so he must be thrown under the bus.
Regnerus's study was based on a nationally representative sample of adult Americans, including an adequate number of respondents who had parents with same-sex relationships to make valid statistical comparisons. His data were collected by a survey firm that conducts top studies, such as the American National Election Survey, which is supported by the National Science Foundation. His sample was a clear improvement over those used by most previous studies on this topic.
Regnerus was trained in one of the best graduate programs in the country and was a postdoctoral fellow under an internationally renowned scholar of family, Glen Elder, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Full disclosure: I was chair of Regnerus's dissertation committee.) His article underwent peer review, and the journal's editor stands behind it. Regnerus also acknowledges the limitations of his study in his article, as he has done in subsequent interviews. And another recent study relying on a nationally representative sample also suggests that children of same-sex parents differ from children from intact, heterosexual marriages.
But never mind that. None of it matters. Advocacy groups and academics who support gay marriage view Regnerus's findings as threatening. (As an aside, that is unnecessary, since his findings can be interpreted to support legal same-sex marriage, as a way to counter the family instability that helps produce the emotional and social problems Regnerus and others have found.)
Regnerus has been attacked by sociologists all around the country, including some from his own department. He has been vilified by journalists who obviously (based on what they write) understand little about social-science research. And the journal in which Regnerus published his article has been the target of a pressure campaign.
The Regnerus case needs to be understood in a larger context. Sociologists tend to be political and cultural liberals, leftists, and progressives. That itself is not a problem, in my view. (I am not a conservative.) A critical progressive outlook is part of sociology's character and contribution to the world, making it an interesting and often useful discipline, especially when it comes to understanding poverty and inequality, determining whether social policies are effective, and establishing why education systems succeed and fail. But the ideological and political proclivities of some sociologists can create real problems.
Many sociologists view higher education as the perfect gig, a way to be paid to engage in "consciousness raising" through teaching, research, and publishing—at the expense of taxpayers, donors, and tuition-paying parents, many of whom thoughtfully believe that what those sociologists are pushing is wrong.
It is also easy for some sociologists to lose perspective on the minority status of their own views, to take for granted much that is still worth arguing about, and to fall into a kind of groupthink. The culture in such circles can be parochial and mean. I have seen colleagues ignore, stereotype, and belittle people and perspectives they do not like, rather than respectfully provide good arguments against those they do not agree with and for their own views.
The temptation to use academe to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender. The crucial line between broadening education and indoctrinating propaganda can grow very thin, sometimes nonexistent. Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged. Survey textbooks in some fields routinely frame their arguments in a way that validates any form of intimate relationship as a family, when the larger social discussion of what a family is and should be is still continuing and worth having. Reviewers for peer-reviewed journals identify "problems" with papers whose findings do not comport with their own beliefs. Job candidates and faculty up for tenure whose political and social views are not "correct" are sometimes weeded out through a subtle (or obvious), ideologically governed process of evaluation, which is publicly justified on more-legitimate grounds—"scholarly weaknesses" or "not fitting in well" with the department.
To be sure, there are many sociologists—progressives and otherwise—who are good people, scholars, and teachers. But the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach. One cannot be too friendly to religion, for example, such as researching the positive social contributions of missionary work overseas or failing to criticize evangelicals and fundamentalists. The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions.
Those who are attacking Regnerus cannot admit their true political motives, so their strategy has been to discredit him for conducting "bad science." That is devious. His article is not perfect—no article ever is. But it is no scientifically worse than what is routinely published in sociology journals. Without a doubt, had Regnerus published different findings with the same methodology, nobody would have batted a methodological eye. Furthermore, none of his critics raised methodological concerns about earlier research on the same topic that had greater limitations, which are discussed in detail in the Regnerus article. Apparently, weak research that comes to the "right" conclusions is more acceptable than stronger studies that offer heretical results.
What is at stake here? First, fair treatment for Regnerus. His antagonists have already damaged his chances of being promoted to full professor. If his critics are successful at besmirching his reputation, his career may be seriously damaged.
But something bigger is at stake: The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case. Sociology's progressive orthodoxy and the semicovert activism it prompts threaten the intellectual vitality of the discipline, the quality of undergraduate education, and public trust in academe. Reasonable people cannot allow social-science scholarship to be policed and selectively punished by the forces of activist ideology and politics, from any political quarter. University leaders must resist the manipulation of research review committees by nonacademic culture warriors who happen not to like certain findings.
Science already has its own ways to deal with controversial research results. Studies should be replicated. Data sets should be made public and reanalyzed. And new and better studies should be conducted. Eventually the truth comes out. By those means, Regnerus might be shown to have been wrong or perhaps be vindicated. That is how science is supposed to work.
By contrast, political attacks like those on Regnerus are contemptible and hurt everyone in the long run, including progressives. Everybody—especially officials at the University of Texas at Austin—needs to be vigilant in protecting scholars and their research against those inside and outside of academe who seek to silence scholars whose research runs counter to the current orthodoxy."
More...
The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world.
In July it reported on the affair John misrepresents in this clip.
The article is long but you really should take the time to read it.
TITLE- An Academic Auto-da-Fé
>...A sociologist whose data find fault with same-sex relationships is savaged by the progressive orthodoxy...<
"Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.
Regnerus's offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That's it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex relationships. And now he is being made to pay.
In today's political climate, and particularly in the discipline of sociology—dominated as it is by a progressive orthodoxy—what Regnerus did is unacceptable. It makes him a heretic, a traitor—and so he must be thrown under the bus.
Regnerus's study was based on a nationally representative sample of adult Americans, including an adequate number of respondents who had parents with same-sex relationships to make valid statistical comparisons. His data were collected by a survey firm that conducts top studies, such as the American National Election Survey, which is supported by the National Science Foundation. His sample was a clear improvement over those used by most previous studies on this topic.
Regnerus was trained in one of the best graduate programs in the country and was a postdoctoral fellow under an internationally renowned scholar of family, Glen Elder, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Full disclosure: I was chair of Regnerus's dissertation committee.) His article underwent peer review, and the journal's editor stands behind it. Regnerus also acknowledges the limitations of his study in his article, as he has done in subsequent interviews. And another recent study relying on a nationally representative sample also suggests that children of same-sex parents differ from children from intact, heterosexual marriages.
But never mind that. None of it matters. Advocacy groups and academics who support gay marriage view Regnerus's findings as threatening. (As an aside, that is unnecessary, since his findings can be interpreted to support legal same-sex marriage, as a way to counter the family instability that helps produce the emotional and social problems Regnerus and others have found.)
Regnerus has been attacked by sociologists all around the country, including some from his own department. He has been vilified by journalists who obviously (based on what they write) understand little about social-science research. And the journal in which Regnerus published his article has been the target of a pressure campaign.
The Regnerus case needs to be understood in a larger context. Sociologists tend to be political and cultural liberals, leftists, and progressives. That itself is not a problem, in my view. (I am not a conservative.) A critical progressive outlook is part of sociology's character and contribution to the world, making it an interesting and often useful discipline, especially when it comes to understanding poverty and inequality, determining whether social policies are effective, and establishing why education systems succeed and fail. But the ideological and political proclivities of some sociologists can create real problems.
Many sociologists view higher education as the perfect gig, a way to be paid to engage in "consciousness raising" through teaching, research, and publishing—at the expense of taxpayers, donors, and tuition-paying parents, many of whom thoughtfully believe that what those sociologists are pushing is wrong.
It is also easy for some sociologists to lose perspective on the minority status of their own views, to take for granted much that is still worth arguing about, and to fall into a kind of groupthink. The culture in such circles can be parochial and mean. I have seen colleagues ignore, stereotype, and belittle people and perspectives they do not like, rather than respectfully provide good arguments against those they do not agree with and for their own views.
The temptation to use academe to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender. The crucial line between broadening education and indoctrinating propaganda can grow very thin, sometimes nonexistent. Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged. Survey textbooks in some fields routinely frame their arguments in a way that validates any form of intimate relationship as a family, when the larger social discussion of what a family is and should be is still continuing and worth having. Reviewers for peer-reviewed journals identify "problems" with papers whose findings do not comport with their own beliefs. Job candidates and faculty up for tenure whose political and social views are not "correct" are sometimes weeded out through a subtle (or obvious), ideologically governed process of evaluation, which is publicly justified on more-legitimate grounds—"scholarly weaknesses" or "not fitting in well" with the department.
To be sure, there are many sociologists—progressives and otherwise—who are good people, scholars, and teachers. But the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach. One cannot be too friendly to religion, for example, such as researching the positive social contributions of missionary work overseas or failing to criticize evangelicals and fundamentalists. The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions.
Those who are attacking Regnerus cannot admit their true political motives, so their strategy has been to discredit him for conducting "bad science." That is devious. His article is not perfect—no article ever is. But it is no scientifically worse than what is routinely published in sociology journals. Without a doubt, had Regnerus published different findings with the same methodology, nobody would have batted a methodological eye. Furthermore, none of his critics raised methodological concerns about earlier research on the same topic that had greater limitations, which are discussed in detail in the Regnerus article. Apparently, weak research that comes to the "right" conclusions is more acceptable than stronger studies that offer heretical results.
What is at stake here? First, fair treatment for Regnerus. His antagonists have already damaged his chances of being promoted to full professor. If his critics are successful at besmirching his reputation, his career may be seriously damaged.
But something bigger is at stake: The very integrity of the social-science research process is threatened by the public smearing and vigilante media attacks we have seen in this case. Sociology's progressive orthodoxy and the semicovert activism it prompts threaten the intellectual vitality of the discipline, the quality of undergraduate education, and public trust in academe. Reasonable people cannot allow social-science scholarship to be policed and selectively punished by the forces of activist ideology and politics, from any political quarter. University leaders must resist the manipulation of research review committees by nonacademic culture warriors who happen not to like certain findings.
Science already has its own ways to deal with controversial research results. Studies should be replicated. Data sets should be made public and reanalyzed. And new and better studies should be conducted. Eventually the truth comes out. By those means, Regnerus might be shown to have been wrong or perhaps be vindicated. That is how science is supposed to work.
By contrast, political attacks like those on Regnerus are contemptible and hurt everyone in the long run, including progressives. Everybody—especially officials at the University of Texas at Austin—needs to be vigilant in protecting scholars and their research against those inside and outside of academe who seek to silence scholars whose research runs counter to the current orthodoxy."
11
"Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper......"
And Wright is no fool.
To protect himself and his publication expect him to capitulate to the HomoFascist Brownshirt thugs as quickly as he can.........
And Wright is no fool.
To protect himself and his publication expect him to capitulate to the HomoFascist Brownshirt thugs as quickly as he can.........
12
additionally, Regnerus' study never claimed the the things Corvino said in the clip.
The Truth:
"Regnerus cautions that his analysis identifies differences in outcomes, but it does not provide causal evidence as to why the differences exist.
"Regnerus said the study best captures what might be called an “earlier generation” of children of same-sex parents, many of whom witnessed a failed heterosexual union.
“This study may not reflect the experience of younger children growing up today in same-sex families, particularly because society has become more accepting of gay and lesbian families in the last decade,” he said. “Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents. Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or nonbiological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood.”"
The Truth:
"Regnerus cautions that his analysis identifies differences in outcomes, but it does not provide causal evidence as to why the differences exist.
"Regnerus said the study best captures what might be called an “earlier generation” of children of same-sex parents, many of whom witnessed a failed heterosexual union.
“This study may not reflect the experience of younger children growing up today in same-sex families, particularly because society has become more accepting of gay and lesbian families in the last decade,” he said. “Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents. Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or nonbiological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood.”"
13
Oh, unregistered comments OFF feature, you make many a Slog thread resemble a text-only Garfield minus Garfield. How I love thee.
14
Matt- there has *never* been a time when I've had anything positive come from turning unregistered comments on. It's never, ever a good idea.
15
Regnerous was a flawed, biased study that was set up from the get go to have the predetermined outcome.
16
@10
From the very same jounral
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/th…
By this point in time it seems clear that something went really, really wrong with Mark Regnerus’s study arguing that gay and lesbian parents are bad parents.
From the very same jounral
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/th…
By this point in time it seems clear that something went really, really wrong with Mark Regnerus’s study arguing that gay and lesbian parents are bad parents.
17
Corvino makes an interesting point:
"...about same-sex couples; we don't generally wake up and say "oops!, we're pregnant". A lot of planning needs to go into that. One thing we know is that planning- careful planning- tends to be good for children and that instability tends to be bad for them..."
Therefore,
in order to compare homosexual parenting to heterosexual parenting the heterosexual couples included in any study must only be couples who had to plan ahead to have their children; in vitro or adoption.
In any future studies that must be the standard of care employed in study design.
We are certain the Howling HomoLiberal LynchMobs that went after the purity of Regnerus' study design will be just as demanding of other researchers in this regard.
Aren't you?
"...about same-sex couples; we don't generally wake up and say "oops!, we're pregnant". A lot of planning needs to go into that. One thing we know is that planning- careful planning- tends to be good for children and that instability tends to be bad for them..."
Therefore,
in order to compare homosexual parenting to heterosexual parenting the heterosexual couples included in any study must only be couples who had to plan ahead to have their children; in vitro or adoption.
In any future studies that must be the standard of care employed in study design.
We are certain the Howling HomoLiberal LynchMobs that went after the purity of Regnerus' study design will be just as demanding of other researchers in this regard.
Aren't you?
19
Just like I wouldn't hire a Christian fundamentalist to explain to me the science of human evolution, I wouldn't hire one to explain human behavior. They think science is not what can be observed but what you believe. That's religion, not science. And you can believe pigs fly. That doesn't make it so.
20
@16
In fact; she should be the Lesbian Mother of the Decade...
MY GAY DIVORCE
By Laurie Essig
THIRTEEN YEARS AGO I MET LIZA COWAN, THE WOMAN OF MY DREAMS. We dated, moved in together, got a couple of dogs, and eventually had children. In other words, we became a family. We didn't get married, however, because we were two women. But in June 2001, we moved to Vermont and took advantage of the state's unique provision for civil unions, which come with all of the privileges of marriage except for the name. We were one of 5,671 same-sex couples to be "civil-unioned." Now we're one of 16 to divorce and, as far as we know, the only ones in that group with kids.
I wish the story of my gay divorce were gayer. Don't get me wrong. The decision to break up our family was devastating. I doubt either one of us will ever fully recover from the heartbreak of it. Yet the divorce itself, like the marriage, feels like a farce.
Neither Liza nor I needed the state to recognize our relationship. Our civil union was about saving thousands of dollars a year in health insurance bills: We could only qualify for the discounted "family rate" if we were civil-unioned. I know our unromantic attitude must be a grave disappointment to many courageous gay activists. But whether a couple is gay or straight, I don't think that legal rights should follow from emotional and sexual alliances. Why can't a family be headed by any adults—a twosome or a threesome, monogamous or not—who share a living arrangement and declare that they're a family?
Given how unfairly restrictive marriage is, I can't take it seriously. So I thought of getting civil-unioned as paperwork. When I called the justice of the peace—the first on a list of names at my local city hall—I was thinking about the money we'd save if our insurance company treated us as a family in its next billing period. "I need a civil union, today if possible," I said.
"Would you like to meet me at the boathouse? We'll perform the ceremony as the sun sets on the lake behind you," a voice responded eagerly.
We turned down the lake and the sunset and showed up at his office an hour later, cranky children in tow. All of us were sweaty from a day at the beach.
"Did you write any vows? Some poetry perhaps?" asked the earnest middle-aged man who opened the door.
"No, we're just doing it to save money. Can you hurry up?" I grunted. Our oldest daughter, then 5, took her toy microphone in hand: "Ladies and gentlemen, come one, come all, to see the wedding of my mothers. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, two women are getting married even if that bad, horrible president guy doesn't want them to. For just one dollar, you can see this lesbian wedding. They may even kiss on the lips. Yuck!"
"Gimme, gimme!" shouted our then-3-year-old, grabbing at the microphone. Fisticuffs began. The J.P., all illusions gone, read the necessary lines. When we asked how much we should pay him, the poor man muttered that his regular fee was $250, but $20 would be fine this time, seeing as he hadn't done much.
Though we never mentioned it to anyone, Liza and I filed a joint state tax return and checked "married or civil-unioned" on every form we filled out in Vermont. Which means that now we have to get a divorce. Of course, gay divorce, like gay marriage, has to be called by another name—dissolution. But according to Deborah Lashman of the Burlington law firm Schoenberg & Associates, a dissolution is handled in Vermont exactly as a divorce would be. For Liza and me, this was a matter of mutually agreeing to divide up our property and parenting obligations and then filing the papers in family court.
More...
In fact; she should be the Lesbian Mother of the Decade...
MY GAY DIVORCE
By Laurie Essig
THIRTEEN YEARS AGO I MET LIZA COWAN, THE WOMAN OF MY DREAMS. We dated, moved in together, got a couple of dogs, and eventually had children. In other words, we became a family. We didn't get married, however, because we were two women. But in June 2001, we moved to Vermont and took advantage of the state's unique provision for civil unions, which come with all of the privileges of marriage except for the name. We were one of 5,671 same-sex couples to be "civil-unioned." Now we're one of 16 to divorce and, as far as we know, the only ones in that group with kids.
I wish the story of my gay divorce were gayer. Don't get me wrong. The decision to break up our family was devastating. I doubt either one of us will ever fully recover from the heartbreak of it. Yet the divorce itself, like the marriage, feels like a farce.
Neither Liza nor I needed the state to recognize our relationship. Our civil union was about saving thousands of dollars a year in health insurance bills: We could only qualify for the discounted "family rate" if we were civil-unioned. I know our unromantic attitude must be a grave disappointment to many courageous gay activists. But whether a couple is gay or straight, I don't think that legal rights should follow from emotional and sexual alliances. Why can't a family be headed by any adults—a twosome or a threesome, monogamous or not—who share a living arrangement and declare that they're a family?
Given how unfairly restrictive marriage is, I can't take it seriously. So I thought of getting civil-unioned as paperwork. When I called the justice of the peace—the first on a list of names at my local city hall—I was thinking about the money we'd save if our insurance company treated us as a family in its next billing period. "I need a civil union, today if possible," I said.
"Would you like to meet me at the boathouse? We'll perform the ceremony as the sun sets on the lake behind you," a voice responded eagerly.
We turned down the lake and the sunset and showed up at his office an hour later, cranky children in tow. All of us were sweaty from a day at the beach.
"Did you write any vows? Some poetry perhaps?" asked the earnest middle-aged man who opened the door.
"No, we're just doing it to save money. Can you hurry up?" I grunted. Our oldest daughter, then 5, took her toy microphone in hand: "Ladies and gentlemen, come one, come all, to see the wedding of my mothers. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, two women are getting married even if that bad, horrible president guy doesn't want them to. For just one dollar, you can see this lesbian wedding. They may even kiss on the lips. Yuck!"
"Gimme, gimme!" shouted our then-3-year-old, grabbing at the microphone. Fisticuffs began. The J.P., all illusions gone, read the necessary lines. When we asked how much we should pay him, the poor man muttered that his regular fee was $250, but $20 would be fine this time, seeing as he hadn't done much.
Though we never mentioned it to anyone, Liza and I filed a joint state tax return and checked "married or civil-unioned" on every form we filled out in Vermont. Which means that now we have to get a divorce. Of course, gay divorce, like gay marriage, has to be called by another name—dissolution. But according to Deborah Lashman of the Burlington law firm Schoenberg & Associates, a dissolution is handled in Vermont exactly as a divorce would be. For Liza and me, this was a matter of mutually agreeing to divide up our property and parenting obligations and then filing the papers in family court.
22
19 however, if you were a woman no doubt you would hire a homosexual yuppie to give you sex advice...
23
@ 14, I'm in full agreement. The ratio of moronic:uninteresting:good comments that are unregisters is 500:100:1. And I'm not even exaggerating or being arbitrary with those numbers.
Stranger Staff: those of you who were in favor of keeping unregistered comments around have been decidedly proven wrong. Stop trying to save face like Mitt Romney and get rid of them altogether.
Stranger Staff: those of you who were in favor of keeping unregistered comments around have been decidedly proven wrong. Stop trying to save face like Mitt Romney and get rid of them altogether.
24
23
wow matt we feel bad for you.
did you read the unregistereds?
there is a lot of factual stuff in there....
wow matt we feel bad for you.
did you read the unregistereds?
there is a lot of factual stuff in there....
25
We know that biological Mother/Father families are not always the best thing for children as often these people kill their children. THE END.
27
@26
Yup. I think he's particularly edgy because he knows Romney's going down. He's really sperging out now.
Yup. I think he's particularly edgy because he knows Romney's going down. He's really sperging out now.
28
Wow Danny.
The Peanut Gallery seems more engaged by the comments they do not read than by the video.
Are you sure this series has enough gas to go 10 days?
The Peanut Gallery seems more engaged by the comments they do not read than by the video.
Are you sure this series has enough gas to go 10 days?
29
this clip has had less than a thousand views on YouTube.
and judging from the comments above none of them are registered slog posters.....
(of course, the geniuses at slog don't need to read the study or watch the video in order to comment on both.....)
and judging from the comments above none of them are registered slog posters.....
(of course, the geniuses at slog don't need to read the study or watch the video in order to comment on both.....)
30
@16
from Laurie's tantrum.....
"...cite serious flaws in the paper, particularly in its misidentification of parents as “lesbian” and “gay” when in fact only two of the people in that category were in long-term, same-sex relationships." ?!
WTF ?!
So now are the only people who can be identified as “lesbian” and “gay” those who are in "long-term, same-sex relationships". ?!
Really?
What do we call the rest?
Really. Tell us.....
from Laurie's tantrum.....
"...cite serious flaws in the paper, particularly in its misidentification of parents as “lesbian” and “gay” when in fact only two of the people in that category were in long-term, same-sex relationships." ?!
WTF ?!
So now are the only people who can be identified as “lesbian” and “gay” those who are in "long-term, same-sex relationships". ?!
Really?
What do we call the rest?
Really. Tell us.....
31
@23 I don't understand the unregistered thing myself, either. I turned them off as soon as they switched & have never regretted it.
Unregistered troll: you have nothing original to say. Whenever something new happens in the world, I can fill in your words for you. You're a robot, programmed in your thoughts. I'd feel sad for you if those thoughts weren't so despicable & morally bankrupt.
Unregistered troll: you have nothing original to say. Whenever something new happens in the world, I can fill in your words for you. You're a robot, programmed in your thoughts. I'd feel sad for you if those thoughts weren't so despicable & morally bankrupt.
32
I hope all the organizations working for Marriage Equality, particularly in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington will find this file, I don't know where to send it. I have PROVEN Corruption and Collusion in Dr. Mark Regnerus' "Gays make bad parents" study. It is documents with records from the Freedom Of Information Act.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106559992/Coll…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106559992/Coll…
33
31
that's a neat trick (telling us what we are saying WITHOUT EVEN READING THE POSTS!...Amaaaaazing!)
now, can you guess our weight?
that's a neat trick (telling us what we are saying WITHOUT EVEN READING THE POSTS!...Amaaaaazing!)
now, can you guess our weight?
34
*cue the banjos*
Oh, I think I know who you all are referring to...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Oh, I think I know who you all are referring to...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
35
We do find it interesting how insistently the Slog Orthodox refuse to read The Troll (or refuse to admit it....)
We find it illuminating to expose ourselves to differing points of view, even radically wrong ones like those common on Slog.
Refusal to even read differing points of view is just sad.....
(Pride in that willful ignorance and closed mindedness is even sadder)
We find it illuminating to expose ourselves to differing points of view, even radically wrong ones like those common on Slog.
Refusal to even read differing points of view is just sad.....
(Pride in that willful ignorance and closed mindedness is even sadder)
36
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
38
@17: But that's not representative of reality. Most gay couples have their children via IVF or adoption, most straight couples have them by doing the dirty deed. Altering the data set like that would be relevant only for a fantasy world in which straights had kids only by IVF or adoption.
...not that you care one whit for reality.
@21: GermanSausage didn't say it did. That was a quote from the opening of the article he linked to, nimrod.
...not that you care one whit for reality.
@21: GermanSausage didn't say it did. That was a quote from the opening of the article he linked to, nimrod.
39
@1: And by the way, the article you link to is from the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not exactly an unbiased source, given the SBC's opposition to homosexuality. How would you like it if I linked to the Huffington Post every time I wanted to prove a point?
40
Hey, Troll! Please point out the post where you haf 'lots of factual stuff in there', cause I read nearly all of your insulting bullshit and saw no facts. None.
And that's how true debates are decided, with facts.
Please point yours out, thanks.
And that's how true debates are decided, with facts.
Please point yours out, thanks.
42
@23
Isn't it odd that we also have a feature to turn off registered comments. Why?
Okay, I've had enough fun with that low-hanging fruit, The Ellipsis Fucker. Time to head out (on the bus, of course) to Oktoberfest! Prost, you bunch of over-educated, godless Liberals!
Isn't it odd that we also have a feature to turn off registered comments. Why?
Okay, I've had enough fun with that low-hanging fruit, The Ellipsis Fucker. Time to head out (on the bus, of course) to Oktoberfest! Prost, you bunch of over-educated, godless Liberals!
44
38
whaaaaa.....
actually you could find plenty of heterosexual couples who got their kids from in vitro and adoption so it would be easy to find large enough sample sizes.
And in order to make a valid comparison of relative parenting success you would need to equalize for income, educational level, etc and; as Corvino points out; how much forethought and preparation was put into child acquisition and rearing.
Which is NEVER done in studies that purport to show homosexuals to be superior parents.
But, strangely, the homoliberal lynch mobs never hound THOSE researchers...
on the other hand;
most homosexual parents did not methodically prepare as Corvino claims in this clip; nor do they rescue their children from orphanages as he tries to convince us in an earlier segment-
no, actually most kids being raised by homosexuals were made the old fashioned way, by those "homosexuals" having heterosex with their heterospouse/partner and then, just as the study by Regnerus observes, breaking those families up when they go out and proud and dragging the kids along for the ride.
sorry the Truth stings so much.....
So, yeah, the study does not limit itself to examining only Fairy Tale Ideal Yuppie Queer couples but it does take a good look at homosexual parenting as it actually exists, a messy ordeal that exacts a toll on the kids.
.
then Von Wiener needs to learn to use quotation marks, doesn't she...
whaaaaa.....
actually you could find plenty of heterosexual couples who got their kids from in vitro and adoption so it would be easy to find large enough sample sizes.
And in order to make a valid comparison of relative parenting success you would need to equalize for income, educational level, etc and; as Corvino points out; how much forethought and preparation was put into child acquisition and rearing.
Which is NEVER done in studies that purport to show homosexuals to be superior parents.
But, strangely, the homoliberal lynch mobs never hound THOSE researchers...
on the other hand;
most homosexual parents did not methodically prepare as Corvino claims in this clip; nor do they rescue their children from orphanages as he tries to convince us in an earlier segment-
no, actually most kids being raised by homosexuals were made the old fashioned way, by those "homosexuals" having heterosex with their heterospouse/partner and then, just as the study by Regnerus observes, breaking those families up when they go out and proud and dragging the kids along for the ride.
sorry the Truth stings so much.....
So, yeah, the study does not limit itself to examining only Fairy Tale Ideal Yuppie Queer couples but it does take a good look at homosexual parenting as it actually exists, a messy ordeal that exacts a toll on the kids.
.
then Von Wiener needs to learn to use quotation marks, doesn't she...
45
39
Are you aware of any factual errors in the story?
If so, by all means share;
otherwise please save your little girl sniveling
for whining to your GF for not putting out. for you....
.
and please feel free to Huff and Puff all you want.
anything will be an improvement over the dingleberry pie you usually serve up.
Are you aware of any factual errors in the story?
If so, by all means share;
otherwise please save your little girl sniveling
for whining to your GF for not putting out. for you....
.
and please feel free to Huff and Puff all you want.
anything will be an improvement over the dingleberry pie you usually serve up.
47
Dear The Slog Commenters, forgive me for forcing you to read The Troll's post, but this was just too precious to pass up.
Quote, the troll: "no, actually most kids being raised by homosexuals were made the old fashioned way, by those "homosexuals" having heterosex with their heterospouse/partner and then, just as the study by Regnerus observes, breaking those families up when they go out and proud and dragging the kids along for the ride."
Wow. Just wow.
Hey, Troll: Please back your fucking wacky assertions about "homosex" up with some facts, and some relevant studies, thank you. Right here, right now. Post just one peer-reviewed article that backs up your stunning claim. Just one. I'll wait while you go find it.
Quote, the troll: "no, actually most kids being raised by homosexuals were made the old fashioned way, by those "homosexuals" having heterosex with their heterospouse/partner and then, just as the study by Regnerus observes, breaking those families up when they go out and proud and dragging the kids along for the ride."
Wow. Just wow.
Hey, Troll: Please back your fucking wacky assertions about "homosex" up with some facts, and some relevant studies, thank you. Right here, right now. Post just one peer-reviewed article that backs up your stunning claim. Just one. I'll wait while you go find it.
48
The majority of this thread is anon comments. Wow.
I like this guy's video project. This kind of thing is what makes the internet awesome.
I like this guy's video project. This kind of thing is what makes the internet awesome.
50
47
sorry doc, you've confused us.
"homosex"? do you mean "heterosex"?
most children in households headed by "hpmosexuals" are the biological offspring of those "homosexuals" from earlier heterosexual relationships.
we don't think that is news or anything........
put down the bottle, re-read our post and then get back to the Slog.
sorry doc, you've confused us.
"homosex"? do you mean "heterosex"?
most children in households headed by "hpmosexuals" are the biological offspring of those "homosexuals" from earlier heterosexual relationships.
we don't think that is news or anything........
put down the bottle, re-read our post and then get back to the Slog.
51
Beer Groogles, if I'm not mistaken, the adults have left for the night, gone to an awards show. Looks like it may be me and you babysitting Slog tonight.
52
@44: Um...you're criticizing researchers for using sample pools that are representative of the population as a whole? Are you on crack?
Also, you claim that homosexuals generally have kids the old-fashioned way. There is no evidence to suggest such a thing, but a lack of facts never seems to bother you.
And for someone who makes false attributions and alters quotes (see here), you seem to care an awful lot about proper quotation syntax.
@45: The article you linked, slanted language aside, implied that Regnerus was cleared of all allegations. However, the memorandum quoted explicitly stated that "[s]everal of the allegations were expressly beyond the purview of the inquiry".
Also, you claim that homosexuals generally have kids the old-fashioned way. There is no evidence to suggest such a thing, but a lack of facts never seems to bother you.
And for someone who makes false attributions and alters quotes (see here), you seem to care an awful lot about proper quotation syntax.
@45: The article you linked, slanted language aside, implied that Regnerus was cleared of all allegations. However, the memorandum quoted explicitly stated that "[s]everal of the allegations were expressly beyond the purview of the inquiry".
53
@50: I call bullshit. Post ONE peer-reviewed paper backing you up, like Dr_Awesome said. If it's such common knowledge, there should be plenty of stuff out there.
54
I think the Regnerus study is a pretty good argument in favor of gay rights. The study proved that hetero-marriages in which mom or dad is having gay sex on the DL tend to be bad for kids. If society did not stigmatize homosexuality then fewer gays and lesbians would get hetero-married and then have gay sex on DL.
55
knock yourselves out....
Demographics of Same-Sex Couple Households with Children
Kristy M. Krivickas
Daphne Lofquist
U.S. Census Bureau
Fertility & Family Statistics Branch
SEHSD Working Paper Number 2011-11
Lots of data about where the kids living with homosexuals come from.
Mostly from their parents' previous heterosexual relationships.
read it and weep.
Interesting tidbit;
adoptive homosexual parents (a minority of homosexual parents) are wealthier than other homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.
(And more likely to have adopted foreign babies (sorry US orphans...))
Which is why Corvino is so eager to only count adoptive homosexual parents as "gay".
Demographics of Same-Sex Couple Households with Children
Kristy M. Krivickas
Daphne Lofquist
U.S. Census Bureau
Fertility & Family Statistics Branch
SEHSD Working Paper Number 2011-11
Lots of data about where the kids living with homosexuals come from.
Mostly from their parents' previous heterosexual relationships.
read it and weep.
Interesting tidbit;
adoptive homosexual parents (a minority of homosexual parents) are wealthier than other homosexual parents or heterosexual parents.
(And more likely to have adopted foreign babies (sorry US orphans...))
Which is why Corvino is so eager to only count adoptive homosexual parents as "gay".
56
51
you are probably right.
we expect Junior's mother to tell him to cut out the lights anytime now and dr awesome seems to have already passed out.
you are probably right.
we expect Junior's mother to tell him to cut out the lights anytime now and dr awesome seems to have already passed out.
58
Hey, Troll! It's called 'Having a life', something I try to do as much as I can. You should try it sometime yourself.
Anyway, now that dinner and my post-dinner martini are finished, I have this for you:
Fuck you, troll. And you are still wrong.
Nowhere in the study you cite does it say that any previous children of gay parents came from previous heterosexual relationships.
It only notes that for some gay parents in gay relationships that they already had children from a previous relationship. That's all.
Did I tell you to go fuck yourself yet, Troll? If not, then please GFY now.
Anyway, now that dinner and my post-dinner martini are finished, I have this for you:
Fuck you, troll. And you are still wrong.
Nowhere in the study you cite does it say that any previous children of gay parents came from previous heterosexual relationships.
It only notes that for some gay parents in gay relationships that they already had children from a previous relationship. That's all.
Did I tell you to go fuck yourself yet, Troll? If not, then please GFY now.
59
Dan, Thank you for introducing me to John Corvino. His little web series is great, and the videos of his longer talks are even better! I'm looking forward to reading and seeing more of his work. I do, however, disagree with him about engaging Maggie G. in civil discourse; she's a bigot, and beyond the pale, and if she wanted to 'protect' marriage as she defines it, she'd be putting her efforts into criminalizing divorce and perhaps pushing for leglistation requiring straight couples to provide proof of fertility before being granted a marriage license.
60
58
now doc.
we were afraid this would happen.
it is a long study, after all.
with lots of words and stuff.
come back after you've pissed that martini out and read it again.
you'll find it this time, we're sure!
now doc.
we were afraid this would happen.
it is a long study, after all.
with lots of words and stuff.
come back after you've pissed that martini out and read it again.
you'll find it this time, we're sure!
61
I'm doing some in-between-the-lines guesswork here as I have the unregistered comments off too, but if someone makes the argument that gay parents are bad parents because they make children in closeted relationships and then bust up their families when they come out, you should reply that the best solution for that, then, is to oppose and eradicate homophobia so that all gay people can come out sooner and with more communal acceptance. Folks who divorced after coming out proves nothing about parents. Instead, it says alot about the various ways homophobia destroys families and harms children.
62
@55: That paper distinguishes between biological and adopted children. The first category DOES include children born via IVF, you twit. Sorry to rain on your parade, but there isn't yet any support of your claims.
63
62
so what percentage of the children being raised by homosexuals are their biological kids?
you can round but have to be within 3 percentage points to get full credit.
so what percentage of the children being raised by homosexuals are their biological kids?
you can round but have to be within 3 percentage points to get full credit.
64
61
No.
Thank You.
We are not in the business of shoveling Liberal BullShit.
Sorry.
We should reply that the best solution for that,
then,
is for people to take responsibility for their behavior.
Because the Truth always is better than Liberal BullShit....
No.
Thank You.
We are not in the business of shoveling Liberal BullShit.
Sorry.
We should reply that the best solution for that,
then,
is for people to take responsibility for their behavior.
Because the Truth always is better than Liberal BullShit....
65
63
ps
you may need to reference some of the other studies cited in the study.
tell us which ones you referred to and get 5 extra credit points for each.
ps
you may need to reference some of the other studies cited in the study.
tell us which ones you referred to and get 5 extra credit points for each.
67
@59-
part of me totally agrees - why should he engage in civil discourse with a bigot? however, how bout this: by doing so, it may be more likely that folks who follow her will see or read his eloquently-put musings. perhaps he's reaching a bigger audience than he otherwise would if he just kept to his own audience?
part of me totally agrees - why should he engage in civil discourse with a bigot? however, how bout this: by doing so, it may be more likely that folks who follow her will see or read his eloquently-put musings. perhaps he's reaching a bigger audience than he otherwise would if he just kept to his own audience?
68
@63: 71.2%, plus or minus 2.8% with 90% confidence. I know a little more about confidence intervals than you do. So...what does this prove? Those biological children could be the result of a heterosexual relationship, sperm donation, or even IVF. Is that all you got?
@64: "for people to take responsibility for their behavior"
What the hell does that even mean? You've gone all Romney on us and refused to say anything not incredibly vague.
Just in case you care, that paper isn't actually in a peer-reviewed journal. It's actually a census bureau publication.
@64: "for people to take responsibility for their behavior"
What the hell does that even mean? You've gone all Romney on us and refused to say anything not incredibly vague.
Just in case you care, that paper isn't actually in a peer-reviewed journal. It's actually a census bureau publication.
69
68
What percentage of the other 29%
are the biological children of the other non-reporting partner?
Because it seems that often homosexuals cohabitate,
and biological children of one or the other
(or both) partners are in the household,
but the parent filling out the survey
does not claim the child as any relation
(probably because they are not married to the child's parent)
and so in the census the child appears to be not living with a biological parent even though they are.
The study's arthors speculate on what that sense of 'rejection' may have on the emotional health of the 'unclaimed' child.
What percentage of the other 29%
are the biological children of the other non-reporting partner?
Because it seems that often homosexuals cohabitate,
and biological children of one or the other
(or both) partners are in the household,
but the parent filling out the survey
does not claim the child as any relation
(probably because they are not married to the child's parent)
and so in the census the child appears to be not living with a biological parent even though they are.
The study's arthors speculate on what that sense of 'rejection' may have on the emotional health of the 'unclaimed' child.
70
@69: One, you're wrong to use quotation marks around words that aren't actually in the document you're referencing.
Two, same-sex couples are less likely, based on the data in Table 1 Panel A, to claim children in their household as "non-related" than are unmarried opposite-sex couples.
If you were really worried about the children, you'd be trying to stop unmarried straights from cohabiting, not trying to persecute gays. I'm wondering just how dumb you are, you anencephalic nitwit.
Two, same-sex couples are less likely, based on the data in Table 1 Panel A, to claim children in their household as "non-related" than are unmarried opposite-sex couples.
If you were really worried about the children, you'd be trying to stop unmarried straights from cohabiting, not trying to persecute gays. I'm wondering just how dumb you are, you anencephalic nitwit.
71
70
we are not just wrong, we are bad. to the bone.
we point out in pretty much each and every "Every Child Deserves...." that shacking up is HELL on the children; and that the domestic mayhem Danny gloats over is not a function of heterosexuality but of children subjected to unmarried adults cohabitating.
So That, too.
we are not just wrong, we are bad. to the bone.
we point out in pretty much each and every "Every Child Deserves...." that shacking up is HELL on the children; and that the domestic mayhem Danny gloats over is not a function of heterosexuality but of children subjected to unmarried adults cohabitating.
So That, too.
72
@71: So riddle me this: why so much effort put into stopping gays from marrying, and why so little put into prohibiting cohabitation? Clearly your elected representatives haven't been listening to you, and thank God for that.
73
As a single mother, i'm tired of getting thrown under the bus in this debate. The arguments about family structure are just as skewed when discussing single parents, where issues of stability (divorced vs. intentionally single), secondary support, and financial resources are far more relevant than simply being married or not.
74
@72 Limiting the sexual freedom of straight people is impractical because there are to many of them and they like fucking to much. When Christian-right politicians start talking about limiting access to contraception and doing away with no-fault divorce they lose elections. On the other hand gays and lesbians are a tiny minority (3-5% of the population). So, guys like Senator Frothy can run against marriage equality and, sometimes, win.
75
This troll's penchant for hashtags for handles is funny, but sad. Thinks he's clever. Adorable. For someone with such strong opinions, you'd think he could do something better with his time than engaging homosexuals with such prolific passion. Well, whatever blows up his skirt, right? I see why he chooses not to register. Plain as day.
76
@71
I know. I must sound like a broken record, but then, well, so do you. So if it is so hellish for children to live with cohabitating adults, isn't that an argument for encouraging willing adults to marry? Even if they happen to be of the same sex?
I know. I must sound like a broken record, but then, well, so do you. So if it is so hellish for children to live with cohabitating adults, isn't that an argument for encouraging willing adults to marry? Even if they happen to be of the same sex?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS