Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Rikurzhen]

They are bogus. They all have serious methodological flaws. They're propaganda.

Do they? Here is one study.
Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post

Please point out the serious methodological flaws, if you can that is.

Kaz has already done that.

No he hasn't. Pathetic attempt at a dodge.

All the gay parenting studies are flawed The Daily Caller

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol. 14, No. 2, 5 Kilgus.pdf

Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children Evaluating the Research

Among the problems cited are the following:

• Non-Representative Samples
• Convenience Samples
• Failure to Reflect Diversity
• Small Samples
• False Negatives
• Inconsistent or Non-Existent Comparison Groups

Please specifically point out what is wrong with the study I listed. Show me where any of those problems occurred in the study. Or can you not actually think for yourself?

Why should anyone invest time in teaching you anything when you are either incapable of learning or closed off to learning?

For God's sakes, you couldn't even understand this simple argument:

Proposition: The increase in pets has come entirely from cats.

Think of it in different terms, dogs, cats and pets. If you have 4 pets in your home in the year 2000, all dogs, and in 2013 you still have 4 dogs but the number of pets has increased to 8, how can you simultaneously have 4 dogs and 8 dogs. Obviously you have 4 dogs and 4 cats. All the increase in pets came from cats.
​

You're a waste of people's time. You argue imaginary data that you make up in order to protect your favored viewpoint.

 

[ricechickie]

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

 

[elektra]

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

I am not the issue on this thread, hence the strawman you make-up does not apply.

So you are saying, homosexual men can not teach children about homosexual sex, or only if it's not graphic?

 

[ricechickie]

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

I am not the issue on this thread, hence the strawman you make-up does not apply.

So you are saying, homosexual men can not teach children about homosexual sex, or only if it's not graphic?

Any parent can teach their child about sex, and it should never be graphic. Nor should it be a description of the parents' own sex life. It should be age-appropriate and factual.

You're the one making the straw man.

 

[elektra]

So, now that all this is settled, Children are not part of the conversation,

Still, I wonder, how will a child react, knowing one daddy is the top, the other is the bottom, how will that child react if his biological father is the bottom, or how will the child react if he is adopted into this situation.

Children are curious things, we discover stuff as children, we figure things out.

But just for this conversation we will pretend all heterosexuals are bad and sex in a homosexual "family" is the best kept secret in the world, sound proof walls and all.

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

Ricechickie clearly believes that learning about sex at home does not involve parental demonstrations.

What does elektra believe?

I believe I am not the issue, the issue is if children should learn at home, about man-made sex. I understand that for the activist, you must dictate that this discussion must focus on heterosexuals

It is plane for all to see

There is no debating a activist/dictator.

Children will learn of sex in a home, do you believe 9 year old boys adopted into a man-made family should be taught or learn about man - man analysis intercourse.

If you answer anything but the question then you believe children have zero say if they are adopted into a homosexual environment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regent and Heritage is like bripat the anarcho commie using Marxist literature for his pet beliefs.

You're the one who posted Marxist propaganda to the forum, Fakey. No amount of diversion or verbal slight-of-hand is ever going to erase that stain from your history.

As two of many pieces, sure, unlike you who almost invariably takes the communist line. My research covers the spectrum of opinion will you march in step with your anarcho commie comrades. There is no way you can hide your confirmation bias.

No one takes you seriously, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, even when specifically debating an issue within Homosexuality, Man and Man adopting 9 year old boys, the Activist dictates the discussion must only be about Heterosexuals.

There will be no, First Amendment Rights, Heterosexuals are not allowed Free Speech. You will be talked down to, you will be dictated to, you will be demeaned, you will be called foul nasty names, you will be intimidated.

Yes, the Activist have the power.

Heterosexual's is the issue in this discussion, if a Heterosexual has ever committed a crime then Homosexual Men have the Right to adopt a Heterosexual's child, and teach him the way Daddy and Daddy live.

That is exactly what ShackledBrain/Nation is stating.

No, that isn't anything akin to what he was saying.

You also don't seem to understand free speech either. I'll clear it up...

Bigot: I think fags are sick
Not bigots: You are an asshole

This is not your free speech being infringed upon. This would be:

Bigot: I think fags are sick
Government: You're under arrest

Understand now?

Nor do you understand, he responded to the statement I made, hence I reference my statement, if he did not agree or disagree, if his statement has nothing to with mine, he should not include me in his statement.

I can only assume his argument is with my statement.
Further, said person is not quoting, hence his response is not a valid response to any single post here.

Speedos is what is being dictated to us, Speedos is just the tip of the Iceberg, said user is obfuscating facts and posts.

Either way, the user disagreed with my post, it is my post that is relevant in my response.

Your post was trying to shut off disagreement, babe, and that is not going to happen, not now not ever.

I agree any homosexuals or heterosexuals that prey on children should be rounded up and put away forever.

If you attack marriage equality, yes, you are in fact attacking heterosexual marriage for those reasons.

They are false.

 

[elektra]

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

I am not the issue on this thread, hence the strawman you make-up does not apply.

So you are saying, homosexual men can not teach children about homosexual sex, or only if it's not graphic?

Any parent can teach their child about sex, and it should never be graphic. Nor should it be a description of the parents' own sex life. It should be age-appropriate and factual.

You're the one making the straw man.

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

I am not the issue on this thread, hence the strawman you make-up does not apply.

So you are saying, homosexual men can not teach children about homosexual sex, or only if it's not graphic?

Any parent can teach their child about sex, and it should never be graphic. Nor should it be a description of the parents' own sex life. It should be age-appropriate and factual.

You're the one making the straw man.

It is not straw man, legit things to discuss. Relevant.

Never a description of one's own sex life, so you agree they should not learn of man-man sex at home.

Only way to protect them from that is to protect them from adoption into same sex unions

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, now that all this is settled, Children are not part of the conversation,

Still, I wonder, how will a child react, knowing one daddy is the top, the other is the bottom, how will that child react if his biological father is the bottom, or how will the child react if he is adopted into this situation.

Children are curious things, we discover stuff as children, we figure things out.

But just for this conversation we will pretend all heterosexuals are bad and sex in a homosexual "family" is the best kept secret in the world, sound proof walls and all.

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

Ricechickie clearly believes that learning about sex at home does not involve parental demonstrations.

What does elektra believe?

I believe I am not the issue, the issue is if children should learn at home, about man-made sex. I understand that for the activist, you must dictate that this discussion must focus on heterosexuals

It is plane for all to see

There is no debating a activist/dictator.

Children will learn of sex in a home, do you believe 9 year old boys adopted into a man-made family should be taught or learn about man - man analysis intercourse.

If you answer anything but the question then you believe children have zero say if they are adopted into a homosexual environment.

Elektra is the would be Activist Dictator, and that won't happen, period.

And thanks to RiceChickie for completely revealing Elektra's illness and lack of understanding about children and marriage. Elketra based on her postings has no clue about this subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Regent and Heritage is like bripat the anarcho commie using Marxist literature for his pet beliefs.

You're the one who posted Marxist propaganda to the forum, Fakey. No amount of diversion or verbal slight-of-hand is ever going to erase that stain from your history.

As two of many pieces, sure, unlike you who almost invariably takes the communist line. My research covers the spectrum of opinion will you march in step with your anarcho commie comrades. There is no way you can hide your confirmation bias.

No one takes you seriously, son.

Let me get this straight: You actually believe that people take you seriously? With a forum nickname like "Fakey?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You kill me, Fakey!

 

[elektra]

So, now that all this is settled, Children are not part of the conversation,

Still, I wonder, how will a child react, knowing one daddy is the top, the other is the bottom, how will that child react if his biological father is the bottom, or how will the child react if he is adopted into this situation.

Children are curious things, we discover stuff as children, we figure things out.

But just for this conversation we will pretend all heterosexuals are bad and sex in a homosexual "family" is the best kept secret in the world, sound proof walls and all.

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

Ricechickie clearly believes that learning about sex at home does not involve parental demonstrations.

What does elektra believe?

I believe I am not the issue, the issue is if children should learn at home, about man-made sex. I understand that for the activist, you must dictate that this discussion must focus on heterosexuals

It is plane for all to see

There is no debating a activist/dictator.

Children will learn of sex in a home, do you believe 9 year old boys adopted into a man-made family should be taught or learn about man - man analysis intercourse.

If you answer anything but the question then you believe children have zero say if they are adopted into a homosexual environment.

Elektra is the would be Activist Dictator, and that won't happen, period.

And thanks to RiceChickie for completely revealing Elektra's illness and lack of understanding about children and marriage. Elketra based on her postings has no clue about this subject.

I stated you are the dictator activist, jakestarkey, now jakestarkey is so devoid of thought jakestarkey must steal from me.

Let me reply, in kind, "no I am not, you are".

 

[bripat9643]

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

Ricechickie clearly believes that learning about sex at home does not involve parental demonstrations.

What does elektra believe?

I believe I am not the issue, the issue is if children should learn at home, about man-made sex. I understand that for the activist, you must dictate that this discussion must focus on heterosexuals

It is plane for all to see

There is no debating a activist/dictator.

Children will learn of sex in a home, do you believe 9 year old boys adopted into a man-made family should be taught or learn about man - man analysis intercourse.

If you answer anything but the question then you believe children have zero say if they are adopted into a homosexual environment.

Elektra is the would be Activist Dictator, and that won't happen, period.

And thanks to RiceChickie for completely revealing Elektra's illness and lack of understanding about children and marriage. Elketra based on her postings has no clue about this subject.

I stated you are the dictator activist, jakestarkey, now jakestarkey is so devoid of thought jakestarkey must steal from me.

Let me reply, in kind, "no I am not, you are".

"Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" is the plain of debate Starkey inhabits.

 

[elektra]

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

Never a description of

I'm simply starting to think that children shouldn't be in your home. If your idea of sex education involves graphic descriptions, then that's your issue, not some imaginary function of a same-sex parent home.

I am not the issue on this thread, hence the strawman you make-up does not apply.

So you are saying, homosexual men can not teach children about homosexual sex, or only if it's not graphic?

Any parent can teach their child about sex, and it should never be graphic. Nor should it be a description of the parents' own sex life. It should be age-appropriate and factual.

You're the one making the straw man.

Never a description of the parents sex life.

That is a dictate, why can I not describe the love and intimacy that I experienced that resulted in life being created.

In order for homosexual men to be able to adopt 9 year old boys, my 1st amendment right must be violated.

I can not share the creation of my own son, with my own son, just to make things equal?

 

[Rikurzhen]

They are bogus. They all have serious methodological flaws. They're propaganda.

Do they? Here is one study.
Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post

Please point out the serious methodological flaws, if you can that is.

Kaz has already done that.

No he hasn't. Pathetic attempt at a dodge.

All the gay parenting studies are flawed The Daily Caller

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol. 14, No. 2, 5 Kilgus.pdf

Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children Evaluating the Research

Among the problems cited are the following:

• Non-Representative Samples
• Convenience Samples
• Failure to Reflect Diversity
• Small Samples
• False Negatives
• Inconsistent or Non-Existent Comparison Groups

Please specifically point out what is wrong with the study I listed. Show me where any of those problems occurred in the study. Or can you not actually think for yourself?

1/)The article you link has the researcher out in the media ADVOCATING conclusions. That's politicized science. It puts researcher bias into play. He's trotting out his "research" to advocate for homosexual families.

2.) Your research even admits the problems that Bripat has explained to you:

Such sample sizes limit statistical analysis and the wider application of findings to the broader community. Convenience samples are also commonly used and are often fraught with problems. As participants are self-selecting such studies are open to accusations of bias that might skew results in favour of same-sex parent families and capture only specific subsets of the gay and lesbian community
​

3.) After admitting the problems inherent in convenience sampling, how does Crouch get the sample for his study?

The convenience sample was recruited using online and traditional recruitment techniques, accessing same-sex attracted parents through news media, community events and community groups.Three hundred and ninety eligible parents contacted the researchers in the first instance with two reminders for non-completion.
​

"Hey everyone, we're doing a study to show that homosexuals are good parents and if you want to contribute to this study, contact us." How many meth-head and crack addicts and abusive parents and child abusers and sex fiends are going to contract Crouch and his team and volunteer to be a part of his study?

4.) How is the control group defined? It's all children, it's the children of meth-heads, crack addicts, abusive parents, etc.

The HOYVS was a school-based epidemiological study of the health and wellbeing of children aged 5-18 years conducted to provide Australian normative data for the CHQ and establish its reliability and validity in the Australian context. A two stage stratified design selected 24 primary and 24 secondary schools across Victoria, Australia, within each educational sector followed by the random sampling of an entire class at each year level in each school. Parents completed a paper version of the Authorised Australian Adaptation of the CHQ between July and November 1997 for a total of 5414 children (response 72%)

The victorian child health and wellbeing survey (VCHWS) The VCHWS collected data on 5025 randomly selected Victorian children aged under 13 years by parent interview between February and May 2009 (response 75%) [40]. Participants were recruited using random digit dialing and were stratified by geographical distribution. Data were collected via a computerised assisted telephone interview with only one child per household included in the survey. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire formed one component of the survey​

5.) Data collection. Homosexual parents are consulted before the interview then directed to both online and paper based surveys, which can be filled out at leisure, while the control group parents complete surveys on the phone with computer assisted voice instructions and which cannot be done at their leisure. Two glaringly different methods of gathering the data.

6.) The mean age of children in the homosexual sample was 5.12 years. 3.86 for male homosexual's children and 5.43 for female homosexual's children. The median age for the group was 4, for male homosexual's children it was 2 and for female homosexual's children it was 4.

Meanwhile, the control group finds children in public schools between the ages of 5 and 18 years in one sample and under 13 years in the other sample.

7.) The homosexual data was collected in 2012 while the heterosexual data was collected in 1997 in one source and 2009 in the 2nd source.

8.) From the homosexual sample, 73% were university graduates compared to 28.5% of mothers from the control group.

79% of children of male homosexuals lived in homes with a family income of $100,000+ compared to 55% of children of female homosexuals. The median family income in Australia is $64,168.

9.) The research is designed to measure child health, not social outcomes, so the fact that homosexuals immunize their children at the same rate as normal parents is the key finding of this research. Again, look at the median age of the children studied - 4 years of age.

The goal here, the goal, the predetermined goal, was to discover some factor which could be touted as showing homosexual parents do as good a job as normal parents. By designing the study as they have and manipulating the execution of the study, they've met their goal - homosexual parents immunize their children just as frequently as normal parents, the babies don't yet show any social problems which manifest in teenage years. really, how many high school drop-outs do you find in a sample where the median age of the subjects is 4?

 

[Pop23]

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

Ricechickie clearly believes that learning about sex at home does not involve parental demonstrations.

What does elektra believe?

I believe I am not the issue, the issue is if children should learn at home, about man-made sex. I understand that for the activist, you must dictate that this discussion must focus on heterosexuals

It is plane for all to see

There is no debating a activist/dictator.

Children will learn of sex in a home, do you believe 9 year old boys adopted into a man-made family should be taught or learn about man - man analysis intercourse.

If you answer anything but the question then you believe children have zero say if they are adopted into a homosexual environment.

Elektra is the would be Activist Dictator, and that won't happen, period.

And thanks to RiceChickie for completely revealing Elektra's illness and lack of understanding about children and marriage. Elketra based on her postings has no clue about this subject.

I stated you are the dictator activist, jakestarkey, now jakestarkey is so devoid of thought jakestarkey must steal from me.

Let me reply, in kind, "no I am not, you are".

That's how fakey rolls

 

[JFK_USA]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

We do know that children in homes with same-sex parents are as happy and as well-adjusted as children from other types of homes, that children need only love and attention to flourish regardless the number and gender of parents, and that you and others who exhibit fear, ignorance, and hate toward gay Americans are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear, ignorance, and hate.

Wrong, we don't know that. Sociologist used to believe that paying mothers to have children wasn't detrimental to society. We now know that it's one of the most destructive things government can do to society. The jury is still out on gay parenting, but simple logic runs against it.

Also, there is no such thing as the "slippery slope fallacy." There's something called the "slippery slope argument," but it's not a fallacy. It's valid logic, though not always true.

No it's not. Multiple studies have shown kids growing up in gay households turn out just fine and are even happier than kids from straight relationships. The only simple logic is that YOU (keyword YOU) don't like it so YOU try to demean and devalue the lives of people trying to just be equals. GTFO.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

We do know that children in homes with same-sex parents are as happy and as well-adjusted as children from other types of homes, that children need only love and attention to flourish regardless the number and gender of parents, and that you and others who exhibit fear, ignorance, and hate toward gay Americans are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear, ignorance, and hate.

Wrong, we don't know that. Sociologist used to believe that paying mothers to have children wasn't detrimental to society. We now know that it's one of the most destructive things government can do to society. The jury is still out on gay parenting, but simple logic runs against it.

Also, there is no such thing as the "slippery slope fallacy." There's something called the "slippery slope argument," but it's not a fallacy. It's valid logic, though not always true.

No it's not. Multiple studies have shown kids growing up in gay households turn out just fine and are even happier than kids from straight relationships. The only simple logic is that YOU (keyword YOU) don't like it so YOU try to demean and devalue the lives of people trying to just be equals. GTFO.

All those studies are flawed. I've taken apart two such studies in this thread. The large sample size Census-based studies show significantly worse outcomes.

You have to be an idiot to reject Census-based studies and instead accept researcher-biased small studies based on serious methodological shortcomings.

 

[Pop23]

We know what the two parent heterosexual home produces, and the havoc that the one parent home produces. Only God knows what homosexual "homes" might produce.

One thing that I am sure of is that the LGBT have no clue what Brave New World they are creating.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

We do know that children in homes with same-sex parents are as happy and as well-adjusted as children from other types of homes, that children need only love and attention to flourish regardless the number and gender of parents, and that you and others who exhibit fear, ignorance, and hate toward gay Americans are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear, ignorance, and hate.

Wrong, we don't know that. Sociologist used to believe that paying mothers to have children wasn't detrimental to society. We now know that it's one of the most destructive things government can do to society. The jury is still out on gay parenting, but simple logic runs against it.

Also, there is no such thing as the "slippery slope fallacy." There's something called the "slippery slope argument," but it's not a fallacy. It's valid logic, though not always true.

No it's not. Multiple studies have shown kids growing up in gay households turn out just fine and are even happier than kids from straight relationships. The only simple logic is that YOU (keyword YOU) don't like it so YOU try to demean and devalue the lives of people trying to just be equals. GTFO.

Know a lot of same sex couples having children with shared DNA?

Equal in what way exactly?

(Prepare for deflection Captain Kirk)

 

[Seawytch]

So, now that all this is settled, Children are not part of the conversation,

Still, I wonder, how will a child react, knowing one daddy is the top, the other is the bottom, how will that child react if his biological father is the bottom, or how will the child react if he is adopted into this situation.

Children are curious things, we discover stuff as children, we figure things out.

But just for this conversation we will pretend all heterosexuals are bad and sex in a homosexual "family" is the best kept secret in the world, sound proof walls and all.

So, for the sake of honesty, do you tell your hypothetical children what you and your hypothetical wife do? Who is on top, who's on bottom, who initiates?

And if so, for fuck's sake, WHY?

Children learn from there parents, directly or in directly.

Ricechickie clearly believes it's wrong for children to learn about sex at home. Thus, ricechickie is agreeing with me, children. can not be taught sex by two men

Should children learn how to procreate at home with mom and dad, according to ricechickie, that is wrong.

Ricechickie, your world is fantasy, children learn at home, intuitively, at the least.

If you're teaching kids about procreation by showing them how mommy and daddy does "it", you're the last person that needs to talk about our kids and how we raise them.

So you agree, children should. not be in a home where they learn about man on man intercourse.

You have zero reading comprehension skills. No, that isn't what I said nor do I agree.

 

[Pop23]

Let's see the study done on children raised by same sex couples where the child is biological to both parents.

Wait, ummmmmm