State's last witness says unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell

[happyslug]

52. The state is saying same sex parents does affect how children perform in school

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Thus this is becoming a battle of experts:

Yesterday, another state expert witness said the following:

Stanyar was questioning Loren Marks, an associate professor at Louisiana State University, who wrote an article criticizing a statement from the American Psychological Association about the children of gay parents. Marks, in his article, was challenging the statement that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks, who testified for most of the day, said he was struck by the absolutist tone of that statement and set out to test it, finding that research was inadequate to make such a claim.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140305/NEWS06/303050154/

The plaintiff's experts have said they is no difference is children raised by two parents of the same sex as opposed to two parents of the opposite sex

The expert of Wednesday said the research cited by the Plaintiff do not SUPPORT the finding claimed in papers and then proceeded to point out why.

The State's expert of today testified that HIS research indicate that children raised in same sex families do suffer educational losses.

Now, the Plaintiff's attorney wanted to attack the research, but ended up failing to do so for the expert point out his research included a larger number of people AND that being Canadian may be more honest then the smaller reports done in the States.

Once the research could NOT be attacked the Plaintiff's lawyer then attack the expert on the grounds that his research may be tainted by his own personal beliefs. Including that Homosexual will go to Hell. The Expert admitted he believed in Hell and that unrepentant homosexuals will go to hell. but then said that belief did not affect his research.

Thus this is a great sound bite, but I believe it is a sign of desperation. You do NOT attack the researcher if you can attack the research itself. All the Attorney showed was that this researcher MAY have a prejudice, but NOT how that prejudice affected his data. It is like someone asking a person on the stand if he hated African Americans, and that witness said yes, when the issue is did the Defendant, who is an African American do something in front of that witness. Yes, the Witness's prejudice could affect how the Witness reported and remember the incident, but does that affect the Witness's testimony as to what the Defendant did?

Think about it. In my hypothetical if the witness saw the Defendant get out of the Defendant's car and shoot someone, does the fact that the Witness hates African Americans affect the Witness's report of who shot whom and when? Yes, the witness's prejudice can be a factor in how the incident occurred, but not that the incident occurred.

The same in this case, the fact that the Expert believes all Homosexuals will go to Hell, how does that affect his research? You attack such experts through his research to show how the prejudice affected the research NOT a direct attack on the Expert. Back to my example, it is like if the Witness testified he saw the Defendant jump out of a vehicle and shoot someone else, both of whom were KNOWN to the Witness, how does asking him about his attitude to African Americans affect his testimony? The better attack would be to ask the Witness how he knew the Defendant and how did he know it was him. Then the prejudice would leak out if it affected what the Witness saw.

Thus the fact that the expert hate Homosexuals is immaterial, unless it can be shown it affected his research. People with prejudices often can do, and do papers on subjects they dislike. That by itself does not make the papers bad. If that was the case, any Jew who did any research on the Holocaust would have that paper dismissed as to prejudiced to be used (and they are some very good papers on the Holocaust done by Jews that are clearly not affected by prejudice do to who the Holocaust was aimed at).

Just a comment, that in my opinion, this question and answer is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I suspect it is so irrelevant that the State did not even bothered to object to the question (Most lawyers do NOT object to everything they can in a hearing, you have to be selective and object when something may affect your case, you do NOT object to something that has no affect on your case). It is a good line for the press, but in the court I suspect it has any value.