Why would anyone actually purchase an Alexa?

This really shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone at this point, but Amazon employees are listening to your conversations through Alexa.

Tens of millions of people use smart speakers and their voice software to play games, find music or trawl for trivia. Millions more are reluctant to invite the devices and their powerful microphones into their homes out of concern that someone might be listening.

Sometimes, someone is.

Amazon.com Inc. employs thousands of people around the world to help improve the Alexa digital assistant powering its line of Echo speakers. The team listens to voice recordings captured in Echo owners’ homes and offices. The recordings are transcribed, annotated and then fed back into the software as part of an effort to eliminate gaps in Alexa’s understanding of human speech and help it better respond to commands.

The Alexa voice review process, described by seven people who have worked on the program, highlights the often-overlooked human role in training software algorithms. In marketing materials Amazon says Alexa “lives in the cloud and is always getting smarter.” But like many software tools built to learn from experience, humans are doing some of the teaching.

The team comprises a mix of contractors and full-time Amazon employees who work in outposts from Boston to Costa Rica, India and Romania, according to the people, who signed nondisclosure agreements barring them from speaking publicly about the program. They work nine hours a day, with each reviewer parsing as many as 1,000 audio clips per shift, according to two workers based at Amazon’s Bucharest office, which takes up the top three floors of the Globalworth building in the Romanian capital’s up-and-coming Pipera district. The modern facility stands out amid the crumbling infrastructure and bears no exterior sign advertising Amazon’s presence.

Technology comes at the price of freedom and privacy.  Your smart phone probably listens to all your conversations already.  Your smart TV does.  Some will say what’s one more listening device in the home at this point?  China has developed a social credit system that can prevent people from getting home loans or purchasing tickets.  Is it far-fetched to think this could happen in America some day too?  Using your private conversations against you?

Whether you take the defeatist attitude or not, why give Amazon, one of the 3 or 4 companies left that will end up owning nearly everything here, more of your own information to some day use against you?  Let’s not be naive enough to think they only listen when Alexa is activated or that every “accidental” recording is actually accidental.  Wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world to unplug once in a while.

Assange Arrested

Julian Assange, one of the last true journalists left in the world, and probably the bravest given that he has literally risked his life to report the truth, was arrested in London after being kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was arrested in London on Thursday morning, after Ecuadorian diplomatic officials invited British police into the country’s embassy to apprehend the Australian.

Assange had been living in the embassy of Ecuador in London under diplomatic asylum since 2012, and was granted citizenship by Ecuador in 2017.

Ruptly journalist Barnaby Nerberka has been broadcasting live from the embassy since tensions escalated between WikiLeaks and the Ecuadorian government of Lenin Moreno last week, and captured the arrest on camera.

Last week, WikiLeaks said sources within the Ecuadorian government told them that Assange was due to be expelled from the embassy “within hours to days,” an allegation the Ecuadorians were quick to deny. It now seems those reports were accurate.

WikiLeaks has maintained that Assange is likely to be extradited to the United States if expelled from the embassy, and was mocked as paranoid by some in the mainstream media for repeated claims that sealed charges existed in the U.S. against the journalist. WikiLeaks was eventually vindicated, as the existence of those sealed charges was revealed in November last year.

In June last year, Vice President Mike Pence pressured the Ecuadorian government on the status of Assange following demands from Senate Democrats that he do so. The New York Times reported in December that Ecuador has been offered debt relief by the U.S. in exchange for handing over Assange.

Assange was monumental in the email dumps that largely contributed to Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election.  The DNC screamed and shouted that they were hacked.  The smart money is the DNC having had one of their own, Seth Rich, having leaked the emails instead.  He was murdered in an apparent robbery, though none of his possessions were actually taken.  Kinda strange for an alleged robbery, no?  And why else would WikiLeaks offer a reward for information?

Ecuador had every right to expel him from their embassy.  He had been there seven years.  But why now?  Q folks speculate his extradition to America is to really get his testimony into the official record.  Whether that’s true or not, time will tell.  But one thing is true, Julian Assange is a true journalist, who sought the truth and had the cajones to publish it, literally risking his life to do so.  Given that he had published information at one time or another that damaged both Democrats and Republicans he clearly wasn’t in it for political points from one side or the other.  How many journalists today take the hard road, the road that will pit you against the Clinton death machine?  A road that would keep you trapped in an embassy for seven years.  We shall see what happens to the man, but his contribution to preventing Clinton from taking office and the heinous crimes she and the Deep State committed against America cannot be understated.  None of what is going on right now, “the storm” that is brewing, would have been possible if she had won, and her odds of winning would have been much higher had Assange taken the easier road, one that nobody could really fault him for taking.

How many is too many before something gets done?

Last year I posted one monthly report of arrests of illegals for child rape in the state of North Carolina.  Here’s a quick screen grab from their website, NCFIRE (North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement).  Follow this link to look at the individual months and the convicts.  You may notice a pattern with the demographics of most of the felons.

Screen Shot 2019-04-10 at 7.29.09 AM

Illegal immigration is pure evil.  Those traitors in our government and the demons who fund the NGOs to further this practice are evil.  American citizens did not ask for this.  There is no benefit that the citizens of North Carolina could possibly receive that could ever warrant their children being raped and abused on a daily basis.  There is no compassionate argument to warrant this at all.  This is effective rhetoric to use whenever someone tries to shame you for standing up against illegal immigration.

This is one state.  I can only imagine the statistics you would find of a similar nature in California, or Texas, or Florida.  Pray for these victims.

Amnesty report seems to be shocked Nordic countries have high rates of rape even though they are renowned for gender equality

It is almost as if some people in their country have no regard for gender equality or something…  Via DailyMail:

Nordic countries including Sweden and Denmark have ‘shockingly high levels of rape’ despite being renowned for gender equality, Amnesty report says

Rights group Amnesty International has accused four Nordic countries renowned as bastions of gender equality of having ‘shockingly high levels of rape’.

Investigators looked at rape cases in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and said flawed legislation, harmful myths and gender stereotypes had resulted in ‘endemic impunity’ for perpetrators.

Amnesty said victims were routinely being failed by investigators thanks to inconsistent techniques and delays in processing evidence.

The report said: ‘It is a paradox that Nordic countries, which have strong records of upholding gender equality, suffer shockingly high levels of rape.’

This really wouldn’t be a paradox to them at all if they were willing to do some actual, honest, truthful, reporting.  One image sums it up:

SwedenRapeStats

There it is.  Done.  African and Middle Eastern refugees simply to not abide by the gender equality standard Sweden so desperately wants to laud that they have.  Islam is not exactly known for its championing of gender equality either.  And as much as they want it to be so, the dirt is not magic.  Arriving in Sweden does not make them magically Swedish in their values.  And therein lies the tragedy.  Instead of facing the uncomfortable truth that Nordic countries refugee policies are fundamentally ruining the native population and their values, they are afraid to point fingers and would rather scratch their heads wondering at the “paradox”.  Quite literally, they would rather go on allowing their women (and often children) to be raped than risk being called racist or an Islamophobe or anything else.  Yet somehow people who point out the fact that it is most certainly correlated to the larger numbers of refugees pouring into the country who are the ones who are called the bad guys even though we care far more than they do about preserving the safety of native Nordic populations.  Imagine how much could actually get done if governments and people just TOLD THE TRUTH.

I do wonder about this Pope

This clip is a couple years old now but I stumbled on it the other day.

And His life, humanly speaking, ended in failure.  The failure of the cross.

-Pope Francis

I’m not Catholic, but that seems like a pretty insane statement coming from the head of the church and the head of the largest Christian denomination.  Pope Francis has made a lot of questionable statements in his tenure.  The Catholic church needs a serious housecleaning, perhaps from the very top all the way down.

A Reminder

1 John 3:4-10 is as relevant as ever as we continue to see the West become less Christian.

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s[b]seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

It seems like we took morality for granted as if it could be uncoupled from Christianity in the West.  As we witness the decline of the West it is abundantly clear that where Christianity is removed sin and lawlessness abound.

Beethoven: 9th Symphony, 4th Movement

One of the most famous pieces of music of all time; perhaps the crowning achievement of all music and a crown jewel of Western culture.  I am easily moved to tears every time I listen to it.  Check out this version, sung by 10,000 Japanese after the 2011 earthquake that rocked their nation.  The Japanese are a strong, proud, resilient people.  One of my favorite versions.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

Oh friends, not these sounds!
Let us instead strike up more pleasing
and more joyful ones!

Freude!
Freude!

Joy!
Joy!

Freude, schöner Götterfunken
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

Joy, beautiful spark of divinity,
Daughter from Elysium,
We enter, burning with fervour,
heavenly being, your sanctuary!
Your magic brings together
what custom has sternly divided.
All men shall become brothers,
wherever your gentle wings hover.

Wem der große Wurf gelungen,
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein;
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele
Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
Und wer’s nie gekonnt, der stehle
Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!

Whoever has been lucky enough
to become a friend to a friend,
Whoever has found a beloved wife,
let him join our songs of praise!
Yes, and anyone who can call one soul
his own on this earth!
Any who cannot, let them slink away
from this gathering in tears!

Freude trinken alle Wesen
An den Brüsten der Natur;
Alle Guten, alle Bösen
Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.
Küsse gab sie uns und Reben,
Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;
Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben,
Und der Cherub steht vor Gott.

Every creature drinks in joy
at nature’s breast;
Good and Evil alike
follow her trail of roses.
She gives us kisses and wine,
a true friend, even in death;
Even the worm was given desire,
and the cherub stands before God.

Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen
Durch des Himmels prächt’gen Plan,
Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,
Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.

Gladly, just as His suns hurtle
through the glorious universe,
So you, brothers, should run your course,
joyfully, like a conquering hero.

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder, über’m Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?
Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?
Such’ ihn über’m Sternenzelt!
Über Sternen muß er wohnen.

Be embraced, you millions!
This kiss is for the whole world!
Brothers, above the canopy of stars
must dwell a loving father.

Do you bow down before Him, you millions?
Do you sense your Creator, O world?
Seek Him above the canopy of stars!
He must dwell beyond the stars.

Trump caves

President Trump, in “red line” Obama-like fashion, caved on his promise to close the border if Mexico didn’t stop the inflow of migrants.

President Trump has punted on his plans for closing the southern border, telling a group of reporters on Thursday that he will give Mexico a year to stop the flow of migrants and drugs into the US. If they fail on either count, Trump will either slap tariffs on Mexican-made cars or close the border entirely.

“You know I will do it. I don’t play games…so we’re doing it to stop people. We’re gonna give them a one year warning, and if the drugs don’t stop, or largely stop, we’re going to put tariffs on Mexico and products, in particular cars. The whole ballgame is cars….and if that doesn’t stop the drugs, we close the border.”

It was unclear whether an agreement with Congressional Democrats would also be a condition for the border closure, after Trump said Tuesday that Congress needed to get rid of chain migration, catch and release and the visa lottery and “do something about asylum” or he would still consider closing the border. “If Mexico doesn’t or we don’t make a deal with Congress, the border will be closed.”

You can’t make empty threats and expect people to take you seriously the same way next time.  I’m not sure why President Trump thinks anyone is taking his word seriously on the border or will take it seriously next year either after pulling this crap.  The border has arguably gotten worse since President Trump took office, seeing as there are record levels of people crossing illegally.  And given that we are on pace for 1.5 million illegals crossing this year, he’s essentially saying he’s okay with that rate for an entire year.  President Trump is either naive enough to think he can peacefully fix the immigration problem and keep the economy rolling, or simply does not have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done, which is escalate the means by which the border needs to be protected.  If violent force or actually closing the border is never a serious option they will not take him seriously.  Make no mistake about it, this an invasion, and we are entirely within our rights to protect ourselves.  It is a tough choice, but we are in a time where we need a man who is willing to make the tough choice, not capitulate.

The economy is not the end all-be all.  The economy is supposed to work at the behest of the PEOPLE of the country.  If we don’t have a functioning society the economy doesn’t mean anything.  And we shouldn’t have to sacrifice our way of life, our freedoms, or our security just so we can have some cars manufactured in Mexico and sold back to us.  Anyone who is still on the free trade wagon at this point is simply a fool.

This is very disappointing; he has somewhat betrayed his base on this one.  Sadly he knows that they will still vote for him because the alternative is far worse, and he’s playing that against us.  If only he negotiated with Congress on immigration as hard as he was treating his base.

Like it or not, we are likely the generation that lived to see the pinnacle of the empire and the beginning of the hard dive of its decline.  Empires rise and fall.  The America you knew and grew up in cannot and will not be revived.  The best that can probably happen at this point is hoping for a peaceful separation.  The upside is there will likely be at least one Christian nation that forms from the remnants.  My guess would be somewhere in the midwest.

Many will call this an exaggeration, but deep down most know that something is wrong.  Our representatives do not work for us.  Laws are simply ignored.  Somehow we are told we have to fight in Syria, or defend Israel, but that for some reason we cannot protect our own borders when around 100,000 people a month invade illegally.  Debt is at an all-time high.  The US dollar as the reserve currency is in peril as superpowers like China and Russia get off it.  Nobody can agree on anything.  Multiculturalism is tearing apart any semblance of community or cohesion.  The truth is hard to admit sometimes, but we would all be fools if we didn’t take it at face value and prepare accordingly.

Take a pass on this show

There’s a new show on channel 4 in the UK called “Mums Make Porn”.  I think the title speaks for itself.  Apparently it’s about mothers who were fed up with the kind of porn on the internet and decided to direct a film they’d be proud to show their children, and do.  Yes.  Really.

A group of five mothers were so disgusted by porn they found online they decided to make their own X-rated film that they would be happy to show their children.

The women made their adult movie as part of a Channel 4 TV show called Mums Make Porn.

Although they didn’t star in the video themselves, they helped direct and produce it in a bid to create porn that is realistic and promotes positive attitudes towards sex.

The three-part series follows their journey into the adult entertainment industry, which sees one mother so distressed by internet porn she quits the project altogether.

One mother is reduced to tears by the violent, rape-based content they find and another throws up.

At the end of the programme the women show the video to their children.

And a little further down:

‘The Porn World is dominated primarily by men, so as a group of woman/mums we address our concerns, we provoke conversation into sex education and address topics such as consent, safe sex and equality.’

Sarah Louise added that on a personal note she wanted to address negative stereotypes of what women should look like and said she was ‘extremely proud’ of the finished project.

She wrote: ‘We hope you keep an open mind and watch Wednesday 20th at 10.00pm, episode one, over 18s only.’

This is how far we have fallen as a society.  These women unironically think they are being good mothers by filming their own porn to show their children.  They are actually proud of this.  Feminism at its finest.  Here’s an idea: rather than kowtow to a degenerate industry that is pure filth on all levels, discourage your kids from watching porn in the first place?

Do children raised by same-sex couples have higher rates of depression?

I do not know.  This post is two-fold.  One is to raise awareness to a potential issue that is an uncomfortable topic that nowadays people find it easier to ignore altogether rather than ask honest questions and have an open dialogue.  The other is to point out that many people will look at this as attacking same-sex couples rather than investigating potential harm to the children themselves.  Here in upside-down world many will immediately take the side of the “minority group” rather than the actual potential victims.  Again, this is not an attack at all on same-sex couples.  What two consenting adults do is none of my business.  But we need to be able to ask difficult questions.  We can still do that in our society, right?  Right…?

This article was published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016.  Knowing the reproducibility crisis in science there absolutely needs to be more research into this and independent studies to verify the results.  It is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, that previous research that contradicts this study has poor statistical analysis and very small sample sizes which lead to hazy conclusions at best.  I could not find follow-up studies to confirm or deny these findings but if anyone has please post in the comment section.  I will add an update if they are confirmed or denied.  A snippet from the article:

Abstract

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. Logistic regression based risk ratios were estimated from longitudinal measures of mental health outcomes observed in three waves (at ages 15, 22, and 28) of the US National Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 15,701). At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Elevated risk was associated with imbalanced parental closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. More research and policy attention to potentially problematic conditions for children with same-sex parents appears warranted.

1. Background

In research and policy settings, children in unique distress with same-sex parents are not supposed to exist. Most studies have reported “no differences” in well-being, most often using psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, supporting a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Uniformly benign findings for this population have recently been challenged, however, by several original research efforts [], the rediscovery of older studies [], and the reanalysis of studies long thought to support “no differences” [].

The sparse and gendered nature of the same-sex parent population largely restricts research in this area to the examination of small samples of lesbian parents. Unfortunately, this difficulty has prompted an almost universal dependence on convenience samples [] recruited, with knowledge of study goals, from internet surveys, “LGBT events, bookstore and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, and youth groups” []. Reanalyses have confirmed, not surprisingly, the presence in such samples of strong ascertainment bias, social desirability bias, and/or positive reporting bias []. In most studies, lack of statistical significance using simple bivariate tests in such samples is then erroneously interpreted as strong evidence of “no differences” in the population, even when difference in estimates or effect sizes are substantively large and even though the sample is not representative [].

In fact, only four of the several dozen studies alleging “no differences” have examined a representative sample. The largest and most recent of these, Rosenfeld’s analysis of 3,174 same-sex parented children on the US Census, is discussed in Section 5. The other three are related studies based on a single sample, a group of 44 adolescents with lesbian parents captured on over 20,000 population-representative cases of the initial wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”) []. Sullins, however, recently found that most (27 of the 44) adolescents in this sample allegedly with same-sex parents were actually living with opposite-sex parents including, for most of them, their biological father as well as their mother. After removing the mixed cases, the remaining sample members fared significantly worse on psychometric measures of anxiety and autonomy than did their adolescent counterparts with opposite-sex parents, albeit comprising only 17 cases []. Other studies employing large representative samples have also found higher depressive symptoms, indicated by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D []), among younger same-sex parented children [] and adults who report having had a same-sex-related parent at some point during childhood []. The design and methodology of Regnerus’ study were the subject of a brief but vigorous debate [], which turned largely on definitional issues [].

No study has yet explored the connection, if any, between late onset distress and precipitating conditions in children in this population, and no research reporting “no differences” has yet investigated parental child abuse or adult onset difficulties []. The present study aims to amend these gaps in the research. It improves on the sample limitations of prior studies by employing data that are both representative and longitudinal, following the corrected Add Health sample of adolescents with lesbian parents, the most well-regarded small sample used in this field to date, through Wave IV, thirteen years after the initial interview at age 15 (on average). It improves on prior methods by the use of standard psychometric scales, to the extent possible, and the estimation of relative risk by logistic regression models with appropriate survey weighting. As the first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood, this exploratory study aims to contribute new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, first identifying the presence or absence of pertinent differences by family type and then developing and testing grounded hypotheses, drawing both from the observed bivariate characteristics of the data and prior research where applicable. For clarity the research presentation will also follow this order, with the formulation of hypotheses presented following initial bivariate results.

This is how toxic subjects like this are.  The same thing played out when The Bell Curve came out.  Though the evidence was rock solid, the attacks were relentless because nobody wants to address the difficult questions and implications surrounding IQ.  The publisher was quick to put out this “Expression of concern” over the article.  Damage control, as it were.

On behalf of Hindawi Limited, the publisher of Depression Research and Treatment, we would like to express our concern with the article titled “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016 [].

The article has been cited to support arguments about same-sex marriage that Hindawi believes to be hateful and wrong. These arguments do not represent the views of Hindawi, our staff, or the editorial board of Depression Research and Treatment. We strongly condemn any attempt to justify hate speech or bigotry through reference to the scholarly record.

In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest.

The handling editor believed the article’s reviewers addressed these concerns, and the author made sufficient revisions to the article to address these flaws. In the editor’s opinion, the limitations of the study did not warrant further correction or retraction. As publisher, Hindawi does not overrule the editorial decisions of our academic editors in such cases.

Nevertheless, Hindawi felt it was important for the criticisms of this study to become part of the scientific record. We invited Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a critic of the article and director of the “What We Know” project (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/) at Columbia Law School, to publish a letter to the editor in Depression Research and Treatment making these concerns visible to the journal’s readers []. That letter is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3185067. We also published a subsequent response from Dr. Sullins [].

Whether the long-term outcomes are proven true or false, I have to applaud Dr Sullins for being brave enough to even ask the question.  Again, that is the main thrust of this post.  Yes, it’s a sensitive topic.  Yes, it will ruffle a lot of feathers in the current climate.  But the pursuit of the truth is important.  And if children truly are worse off in same-sex households isn’t it worth investigating that if there is seemingly credible evidence?  I completely agree that additional studies need to be done.  The initial study was funded by a Catholic group.  Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is biased but it opens the door.  It would be great if non-partisan groups did their own studies.  That is how science is supposed to work.  Dr Sullins issued a response to the publisher’s expression of concern which a few snippets are worth posting.  The entire response can be found here.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Frank’s letter [] about my article [] and applaud Hindawi fostering a free and open exchange. Frank’s complaint that I “fudged” the sample to bias the results in ways that are “damning” to gay and lesbian parents is emphatically false. Frank’s claims are based on multiple confusions and errors, mischaracterize the state of knowledge, and use special pleading. To the extent some of his points have merit they tend to undermine not my study but rather others showing benign findings for children with same-sex parents and suggest I have if anything understated the level of harm for such children.

No Harm Studies: 74, or Fewer than 10? Frank characterizes my findings as an “outlier” from 74 studies collected on his website showing no disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. But there are many other studies he did not select, which report difficulties in same-sex partnerships similar to my study. I cited three such studies concerning health difficulties and intimate partner violence (IPV). Messinger’s conclusion, for example, is very similar to mine: “concerns over ‘airing the dirty laundry’ of an already stigmatized community alongside researcher prejudice or indifference cannot justify treating GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] IPV victims as invisible, leaving them without support in a painful and potentially dangerous environment.” [] My study is not an outlier but is in line with the concerns and approach of these other studies.

Frank also does not mention that his website also includes four studies that do show disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. Three of these studies employ three separate large population samples, finding similar levels of disadvantage []. By contrast, the 74 studies include only two or three which use population samples. The remainder are small convenience samples, typically recruited from sympathetic groups and settings, that are (in my view and that of detailed reviews) [] worthless for the question of child outcomes. These studies do not meet minimal scientific standards and are biased toward benign findings []. Asking patrons of a local LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] bookstore or gay friends network about child outcomes is like surveying a Bible study about religiosity: the rosy picture is misleading about the larger population. Excluding such nonrandom or biased samples, fewer than 10 of the 74 studies remain.

One last snippet:

I think I have addressed enough errors in Frank’s critique to establish that his criticisms of my study are unfounded and that my findings are well justified. However, I doubt this will be convincing to him or those sharing his perspective, because what appears to disturb them is not the study methods but the findings. I suspect no evidence will convince Frank that children with same-sex parents may face unique and heightened struggles and difficulties. It is right to be appalled at that thought, but the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.

And sadly, I think Dr Sullins is right.  Even if this was perfectly executed from a procedural standpoint, it will never be enough, because they don’t like the OUTCOME.  Which is the truly sad part, because in the end if that is the case then it’s the children who are the ones who suffer because of a political agenda.  We may not always like the truth.  It may hurt.  But one should ALWAYS take the truth rather than lie about it.  The more one lies to one’s self, the easier it becomes to justify worse and worse behavior.  Letting the evil one rule over yourself will always lead down a dark path.

%d bloggers like this: