[Skeezix]

It is regrettable, despite the very best of intentions of most gay couples, yet nevertheless true.
Some gay couples are good parents, some hetero couples are terrible. But don't let your progressive politics get in the way of millions of years of evolutionary history. Its how we evolved. I notice you duck the key assertion young boys need father figures. Just look at the crime statistics where fathers are not present. Just admitting the obvious doesn't make you a Nazi, relax.
Men are already largely absent from elementary schools, for well-known reasons, removing another important influence.

Its this sort of mystical, cult-like thinking that destroyed liberalism with the general public and opened the door to nutjobs like Trump & Ford. And its truly sad because I was fairly liberal until I stood back and actually looked at what was going on.

And with regards lesbians raising boys i happen to actually know something about it (anecdotally)

Ugh.

You shouldn’t be talking about cult-like thinking after a post like that.

Let me be clear. It is undisputed fact that the research and studies that on this topic, i.e. actual evidence (not assumptions based on prejudice and bias, as you’re relying on), overwhelmingly conclude that children of same-sex couples fare no worse than other children. To assist you in getting up to speed, researchers at both Cornell and Bowling Green in the past few years have both undertaken comprehensive reviews of all of the work that has been done in this area, and it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion I note above. Moreover, I would add that a recent study published in 2016 in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, which is considered the most definitive study on the topic to date, found, based on data from the National Survey of Children’s health, that there is no difference in outcome among the children of opposite-sex and same-sex parents.

Works supporting the opposite conclusion are few in number, highly criticized and outliers. They almost all suffer from the same flaw – few of the families studied were actually same-sex households, but rather failed opposite-sex households where one parent came out as gay or lesbian (with those children suffering the typical stress and disruption of any divorce). In other words, they basically tried to equate children of same-sex couples with children of divorce.

The poster boy for your “won’t someone think of the children” anti-LGBT crowd is Mark Regnerus, whose work is so discredited that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Sociological Association have all felt the need to publicly come out against his data and conclusions. My favourite story dates back to 2014, when Regnerus gave testimony on the Michigan same-sex marriage ban – the Reagan-appointee judge on the Federal Court stated in his decision: “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worth of serious consideration”. Moreover, the evidence before the Court showed that Regnerus’ work was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder”. I keep that decision on hand because the findings respecting Regnerus’ work are so deservedly scathing.

I’ve supplied some introductory links so you can actually research the facts. I’m now done debating this with you because your posts are not suggestive of someone who has something substantive to add to this, or likely any, topic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091994/

https://whatweknow.inequality.corne...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

https://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Ab...nd_Different_Sex_Parent_Households_and.1.aspx

 

[buildup]

I doubt you're 'done debating' with me, because you have way too much invested in your position. In recent years it's become commonly known that Social (non)Sciences have been overrun (infested) with far left academic types who use citation-rings and peer-reviews to validate each others work without having analytical abilities. I'd assume most of the scientists who did this 'research' have PhDs in Gender Studies. Never heard of Regnerus (your favorite story).

You're never going to MAKE reasonable people believe that the sex of the parents, or number of parents (1,2,3) leads to essentially the same outcomes. Silly post-modern ideas run amuck.

 

[grey]

[ read in kermit voice ]

In recent years it's become commonly known that Social (non)Sciences have been overrun (infested) with far left academic types who use citation-rings and peer-reviews to validate each others work without having analytical abilities.

 

[buildup]

[ read in kermit voice ]

Under-graduate in Gender Studies?
Don't blame me if no one lines up to hire you, LOL.


...and I'm done debating Skeesex.

 

[Skeezix]

I doubt you're 'done debating' with me, because you have way too much invested in your position. In recent years it's become commonly known that Social (non)Sciences have been overrun (infested) with far left academic types who use citation-rings and peer-reviews to validate each others work without having analytical abilities. I'd assume most of the scientists who did this 'research' have PhDs in Gender Studies. Never heard of Regnerus (your favorite story).

You're never going to MAKE reasonable people believe that the sex of the parents, or number of parents (1,2,3) leads to essentially the same outcomes. Silly post-modern ideas run amuck.

Yes, yes, the experts, who are highly educated and are studying the actual facts extensively, are all wrong and biased, and you’re unbiased, right and aren’t a wingnut at all. It’s all a conspiracy theory.

Love your reference to reasonable people and that you don’t appear to see the irony in it.

Goodbye. Better tighten that tinfoil hat of yours.

 

[buildup]

Yes, yes, the experts, who are highly educated and are studying the actual facts extensively, are all wrong and biased, and you’re unbiased, right and aren’t a wingnut at all. It’s all a conspiracy theory.

Love your reference to reasonable people and that you don’t appear to see the irony in it.

Goodbye. Better tighten that tinfoil hat of yours.

View attachment 146075

It's possible study results were manipulated around the definition of 'doing no worse than' since that would depend on criteria selected. Men & women are different, being exposed to both is typically better, no kid benefits from missing out on half the human race.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Goodbye. Better tighten that tinfoil hat of yours.

I doubt you're 'done debating' with me, because you have way too much invested in your position.

What does any of this have to do with Regent Park? What I've never understood is the need to engage. When you encounter crazy, cross the street, and carry on as was.

Now, back OT. What's planned for the NW corner of Parliament and Gerrard? Years back I attended a planning session and the developer of the time said they wanted a 40+ storey building there!

 

[Skeezix]

What does any of this have to do with Regent Park? What I've never understood is the need to engage. When you encounter crazy, cross the street, and carry on as was.

Now, back OT. What's planned for the NW corner of Parliament and Gerrard? Years back I attended a planning session and the developer of the time said they wanted a 40+ storey building there!

What does your sanctimonious response have to do with Regent Park?

OP made comments about families based on his walks through Regent Park. Some of us questioned his assumptions. The discussion didn't go on for very long, and the thread was not sidetracked. Why you felt a need, almost a week later, to complain about a completed conversation is beyond me. Also, nice that you don't feel the need to engage. It wasn't your family he was attacking. So, good for you, I guess.

Like I said above, I'd like to be done with this conversation. Thanks.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Like I said above, I'd like to be done with this conversation.

Apparently not.

The building at top left at Gerrard and Parliament concerns me most. At the planning meeting the developer pushed an impossible ask of 40+ stories so that he could backtrack to 20+ stories and be seen to be conceding to the community voices against such height at the corner of the development. IIRC, the original plan ten years ago or so I saw had that corner about six or eight stories. IMO a tall building on that corner will look out of place against the low rise units running along the south side of Gerrard from Parliament to River.

I do wish they could save the big trees along Gerrard's south side. To replace a tree lined street with a wall of cement and glass doesn't sound like progress to me.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I do wish they could save the big trees along Gerrard's south side. To replace a tree lined street with a wall of cement and glass doesn't sound like progress to me.

That's because it isn't progress. I'm a bit confused, in your first post you cite the NW corner Gerrard/Parliament and in the second you provide a map of the buildout plan and cite the top-left which would be the SE corner Gerrard/Parliament.

Is it the SE or NW, because a 40 (or even 20, at this point) storey tower on the NW corner would be a bit out of line.

 

[Admiral Beez]

SE

 

[innsertnamehere]

by removing those trees they can hopefully restore the commercial nature of that stretch of Gerrard - the north side has long struggled without having retail on the south side.

 

[Admiral Beez]

by removing those trees they can hopefully restore the commercial nature of that stretch of Gerrard - the north side has long struggled without having retail on the south side.

I'm not entirely sure that stretch of Gerrard had a commercial nature to restore.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I'm not entirely sure that stretch of Gerrard had a commercial nature to restore.

It appears that it was a mix of townhouses and commercial storefronts:

https://storage.googleapis.com/sidewalk-old-toronto/images/s0372_ss0033b_it0154.jpg

This used to sit on the southwest corner of Parliament and Gerrard:

 

[UserNameToronto]

by removing those trees they can hopefully restore the commercial nature of that stretch of Gerrard - the north side has long struggled without having retail on the south side.

I'm not entirely sure that stretch of Gerrard had a commercial nature to restore.

Most of Gerrard has a commercial tilt to it. The stretch through Cabbagetown/Regent Park could be vibrant, given all of the towers going up (full of potential customers) and the 4 transit stops between River and Parliament. Bring it on, I say.