Here's My take on her 9 points:
1} Yeshua [aka 'Jesus'] was married- I agree Yeshua was likely married to Miriam of Magdala [aka Mary Magdalene] & there's other evidence for this besides the 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' [which IMO has NOT been proven a forgery]- starting w hints in the Gospels themselves. IMO the reason this subject keeps coming up is because there may well be something to it.

2} RE the Length of Yeshua's hair: IMO a bit irrelevant but most likely long. IMO Yeshua may well have been a Nazirite [as was Yeshua's near kinsman Yokhanon the Baptist], which means He would NOT have cut his hair.

3} Hung on a pole NOT a cross: That Yeshua was CRUCIFIED upon order of Roman Imperial Gov of Judea Pontius Pilate is verified by all 4 Gospel accounts, as well as Josephus & Tacitus. Crucifixion literally means being executed by being nailed to & hung upon a cross- Duhh!

4} Yeshua was short NOT tall: IMO just a bit irrelevant & trivial. Apparently there's little if anything in the Bible re Yeshua's actual height [IMO if He was unusually tall it likely would have been noted ala King Saul was noted to have stood head & shoulders above nearly all of the host of Israel].

5} Yeshua was born in a House NOT a stable: IMO there's NO reason to differ from the author's rebuttal.

6} Ms Tarico is technically correct that Yeshua translates to 'JOSHUA' in English, NOT Jesus- which is Greek.

7} IMO the number of original apostles 12- has much more to do w the 12 Tribes of Israel, than astrology [the original ancient Hebraic calendar likely had 13 - 28-Day months instead 12 - 30-Day months]

8} Prophesies re Yeshua recalled NOT fore-told: 'MAY' be so in some, but IMO NOT ALL cases. IMO only a 'Jesus Mythicist [ala Ms Tarico] would think NONE of the prophesies re to Yeshua is authentic.

9} Again I concur w the author's analysis re this point.

If you are right that there is nothing beyond materialism, then you are correct. The delusion of meaning in life or what makes up life is truly humbug. Life is then pointless and arbitrary. The problem is that such a view feels so wrong. It explains so little that it must be dismissive and not reasoned with evidence that we and nature are much more than we simply appear. Jesus taught that he came so that we may have life and have it more abundantly. Why bother? We bother greatly because life has meaning and purpose.

Your comment doesn't make sense to me, lol.

Your concept of hell as revenge doesn't make sense to me. Revenge by whom? God? Why would an omnipotent immutable God need/seek revenge on anyone. Nothing we do here can harm Him by definition so therefore God has no need for revenge. Frankly the idea that God requires revenge is at best laughable. When we further explore the Christian idea of God, that He is love, then the notion makes even less sense (see 1 John 4).

There were multiple comments. I think you just looked at one. To briefly summarize:
1) There are serious methodological issues in the Regnerus study. He did not compare stable heterosexual couples with stable homosexual couples. For this reason alone, we can dismiss his study.
2) If No Difference is true, we would expect an occasional study to find a difference.

Actually, I am quite familiar with statistical analysis. I'm an engineer and I use statistics in my work. But its late, I'm really tired, and I tried, unsuccessfully to simplify my comments. (the> sign was a typo). I'll look at your other comments tomorrow and get back to you. Didn't realize you had a long exchange with Brandon.

Roman, I don't think you understand what you're talking about when it comes to statistical analyses. First, it's p ). Second, you're clearly conflating effect size and statistical significance when you say:

This is only relevant if the difference between the gay/lesbian parents group and other family structures was small, i.e., 5% or less. But that is not what Regnus found. He found the differences were much greater than that, i.e., statistically significant.

A difference has to be significant to be interpreted; otherwise, it's not considered to be a difference. How large the significant difference is is where effect size comes in. It's possible for an analysis to have a relatively large effect size without being statistically significant in a small enough sample. Likewise, it's possible to find a significant difference in a large enough sample that has a very small effect size.

Also, that was one of three or four comments on that page I made about the Regnerus study; see my other comments for why the results should not be interpreted as Regnerus suggested.

Luke didn't demolish anything. He simply pointed out that the most common criterion for significant is a p>.05 alpha level, i.e., 5% of all analyses will reveal false positives. This is only relevant if the difference between the gay/lesbian parents group and other family structures was small, i.e., 5% or less. But that is not what Regnus found. He found the differences were much greater than that, i.e., statistically significant. He also showed "that the children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers tended to do worse than those from any heterosexual family structure, including more unstable, non-intact ones." The link below lists all 57 statistically significant comparisons between the children of lesbian mothers versus other children who did not grow up in a biologically intact family:

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings

There are many other good studies that demonstrate the unique contributions that biological mothers and biological fathers provide to children proving that a man and a woman united in marriage do not equal a man+man or woman+woman from a child's perspective or his/her welfare.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of blame to go around.

If this is true, the primary failing is in the individual.