Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Seawytch]

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.

Oh? Which...your Canadian study that proved only that the children if unmarried couples do slightly worse in school? That proves what?

 

[elektra]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

 

[Seawytch]

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

Oh, do explain that one, please.

 

[elektra]

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

Oh, do explain that one, please.

Quote everything, cherry picker.

 

[JFK_USA]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

I know 3 people who have homosexual parents and not a single one would give them up for anything. They love their parents because their parents love them. Stupid reasoning.

 

[ricechickie]

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?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

 

[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.

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.

Again YOU ignore any proof that kids can grow up just fine in homosexual households. I know 3 people who did and they are as normal as can be. Yes they may have issues but everyone has issues but they are very successful people and have done well for themselves.

And every research study has flaws including the one YOU prefer. That's science and statistics 101. That doesn't mean ALL kids in homosexual families are worse off because YOU don't like it.

 

[elektra]

Studies by adults says kids are healthy in a homosexual home, but the studies do not say, "if given a choice, would the child choose to live in a man-man homosexual home".

I know 3 people who have homosexual parents and not a single one would give them up for anything. They love their parents because their parents love them. Stupid reasoning.

I am speaking of adoption, not simply having a parent who is homosexual.

Stupid comprehension on your part,

 

[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?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

 

[ricechickie]

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?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick fuck you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

 

[beagle9]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

 

[ricechickie]

So....about the kids.

Kids have the right to a safe and secure home environment. Physical, mental, and emotional safety. Education is important, and parents are the first teachers of their children. Parents have the responsibility to educate in an age-appropriate way.

None of the above is impeded or enhanced by skin color, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or economic circumstances (except for the most extreme poverty).

 

[Rikurzhen]

And every research study has flaws including the one YOU prefer. That's science and statistics 101. That doesn't mean ALL kids in homosexual families are worse off because YOU don't like it.

Let's flip the situation but use the same methods these homosexual "researchers" use. Let's say that a "researcher" has sympathy for KKK members. He goes to a Klan meeting and puts out the word that he wants to show that KKK people raise great children. Well, the meth-head KKK guy isn't going to volunteer but the family doctor will. So you have all these rich, well educated people volunteering and the researcher goes out and conducts his psychological assessments and finds out that the kids are doing just fine being raised in the homes of rick KKK parents.

Then he compares to ordinary folks, people dealing with drug abuse problems in their homes, alcoholism, family violence, single parent homes, families from different racial groups, families from different cultural groups.

The researcher finds that KKK families do very well compared to the general public and then goes onto all the media and pushes that message, he politicizes the message.

The problem is that his study is garbage. He self-selected an elite group, rich well educated people who belong to the KKK. He didn't get a representative sample of all KKK members. Then he compared his rich, selective group to the general population.

That study would be as worthless as all those homosexual studies pushed by gay advocates. The Census studies bypass all of this bad study design. They look at EVERYONE.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

So in other words you can't refute the study. That's what I thought.

 

[elektra]

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?

Why don't you tell us how you would describe the love and intimacy that you experienced to create life?

Go ahead, give us the sex education that you would give your child(ren). Since you think that homosexual parents are teaching their kids about who is the top and who's the bottom, let's just see you type out all the ways in which you would teach a child about heterosexual sex.

(Of course, sex education usually doesn't involve simply an indoctrination into the parents' sex practices, but that's another story.......)

Please. Enlighten us.

Again, this thread is not about me, it's about kids.

You stated children should never learn, "a description", dictating what shall not be taught by parents.

Now you dictate that I state details of my intimacy, just like an activist, we must always chase the goal posts which the activist constantly moves.

Always fishing for a fault in heterosexuals, dictating that the discussion is not about homosexuality.

Now we are told that, "Heterosexuals indoctrinate children", that is bad, hence the improper term applied to what is normal and acceptable.

Pretty scary you are

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick fuck you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick fuck, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - fuck's adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick fuck, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

First, I will say I respect you for specifically addressing the study I mentioned. Thank you.

1. Researchers advocate their findings in all areas of science. If research reaches one conclusion, but others are assuming another conclusion is true, a research has every right to publicize their research and correct false assumptions.

2. The section you references was brief literature review. The study was referencing current research to date, criticizing the limits of other studies prior to it and then explaining how this study, although suffering from limitations like any other study, is better than the prior studies.

3. Convenience sampling is perfectly valid. It has it's drawbacks, but so do other methods of sampling. And the researchers were very honest about those intentions. However, as they noted, if systemic bias was at play "it would be anticipated that all outcome variables would demonstrate higher scores across the sample." This was not, in fact, the case.

4. The comparisons in the study control for those differences.

5. Before any interview participants must be consulted. That is done for ethical reasons, and was done for the heterosexual parents as well. Furthermore, there were two measures of the well-being of children in heterosexual relationships. The health of young Victorians survey was a paper survey. You are correct that the other was a phone survey, but comparing phone survey results and electronic/paper results is not invalid.

6. Age was also controlled for and data adjusted to account for differences. Furthermore, you are comparing median ages of the homosexual group to the age range of the heterosexual group. Those aren't even comparable values. The age range of the homosexual group was 0-17 years. The age range of the heterosexual group, as you pointed out, was either below 13 years or 5-18 years. The range is the same. I cannot find median data for both groups, but page 8 of the study lists the mean age. The heterosexual sample is less than 2 years older than the homosexual sample. Furthermore, age is controlled for regardless.

7. The 2009/2012 difference is simply not an issue whatsoever. There is a more valid point to make about 1997 data, at least potentially, but I don't see what problem that would create that invalidates anything.

8. The study pointed out this fact, controlled for it when comparing groups, and explained that often homosexual couples are better educated and wealthier simply because they have to invest more time and money into having children. It is more planned, in other words. But again, the educational and income differences were controlled for. This is typical for any study in the social science field.

9. The study measures child health and well-being. This includes social well being, with measures such as emotional behavior, mental health, self-esteem, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, among other variables. These measures are listed right in the study. Immunizations was a very, very minor point in the study.


As to your last bit, that is simply incorrect. In social science studies like this, factors such as age are factored out. The researchers were not comparing 4-year-olds to teenagers.

 

[ShackledNation]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

 

[Pop23]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Us sick people, those that couple together with a combination of everything required to create life?

Those sick people?

Remember, the world depends on those couplings.

True story folks

 

[elektra]

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

In case you are forgetting, Sil.

A mardigras parade

Clearly these people are trying to attract children to a sinful heterosexual lifestyle of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. How dare you allow heterosexuals to get married and adopt children.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, other than this parade or party in the street called mardigra is also shunned by huge amounts of people who do care about their children and themselves upon what they are exposed to upon this nations streets or within the nations schools and/or public places in which they may visit or participate in.

There are people or citizens whom think that this is also wrong for the nation to be agreeing with and/or to be doing such things out in the public that you are using as an example of here in order to enforce somehow your argument that is being made. It's truly a spectacle of pure debauchery at it's worse these types of things are, and yet they were once confined to certain borders or areas where one had to seek these things out instead of them seeking us out like they do now.

Now with that said, such events as these are drenched in sinfulness that many do regret if they had participated in them, and it is that they wished looking back that they had never participated in such events as they had done over the years gone by now.

These days or even in the days of old they were just plain wrong in most peoples minds, because they are over the top and corrupting to any and everything that moves. They need to be cleaned up instead of accepted as um-bridled & worse um-bordered or even worse than that enhanced to the point of having these types of exposures going way to far finally in society. It all probably has gone to far already upon leaving the boundaries in which they were once confined to, but the genie has been let out of the bottle now, and so all the good citizens of this nation can do is damage control or to separate and stay away from it all somehow, but that's getting harder and harder these days for people to do... This type of stuff was always taboo, and people are being ruined by these things anymore, and many are becoming tired of it all I think, so the shift from it might come soon, but I could be wrong yet I hope not...

The point is to expose the double standard. The "sinfulness" of the straight people I pictured is never used as a reason to deny all heterosexual couples the right to a marriage license and adoption. Yet when gay people show the same behavior, it is used to deny all gay couples the right to a marriage license and adoption.

Homosexuals are adopting, the contention that all Homosexuals are denied adoption is a lie.

Did you just state both as, rights?

 

[Rikurzhen]

1. Researchers advocate their findings in all areas of science. If research reaches one conclusion, but others are assuming another conclusion is true, a research has every right to publicize their research and correct false assumptions.

No, they do not. They let the science speak on their behalf. They do not engage in public policy debates. That's considered bad form.

4. The comparisons in the study control for those differences.

When you control for the differences the sample size drops significantly. When 79% of male homosexuals live in households with $100,000 family income, then of the 89 male homosexuals in this study, only 19 lived in households with less than $100,000 family income. Having only 19 households severely limits the ability to tease out what is happening.

5. Before any interview participants must be consulted. That is done for ethical reasons, and was done for the heterosexual parents as well.

It was not. There were no heterosexual parents interviewed at all. The heterosexual control group was represented by old data from two studies dealing with other topics, one from 1997 and the other from 2009. This homosexual study was conducted in 2012. Until we invent time machines, what you say didn't happen.

Furthermore, there were two measures of the well-being of children in heterosexual relationships. The health of young Victorians survey was a paper survey. You are correct that the other was a phone survey, but comparing phone survey results and electronic/paper results is not invalid.

You change the nature of the sample audience when you present two ways of taking a survey. The paper based survey respondents can fill out the survey at their leisure, they can think about each question, they can fill out the survey over many days/evenings and most importantly they can develop an overview of the entire survey before the respond to the first question, thus enabling them to tailor their response to what they deduce about the survey. A telephone respondent has to answer the survey in one sitting, has to answer each question as it is presented to him and doesn't get to deduce the nature of the survey by reviewing it in its entirety before he commences with they survey.

This is a gross violation of good study design. It's damn atrocious.

7. The 2009/2012 difference is simply not an issue whatsoever. There is a more valid point to make about 1997 data, at least potentially, but I don't see what problem that would create that invalidates anything.

Why not use data from the 1950s then?

8. The study pointed out this fact, controlled for it when comparing groups, and explained that often homosexual couples are better educated and wealthier simply because they have to invest more time and money into having children. It is more planned, in other words. But again, the educational and income differences were controlled for. This is typical for any study in the social science field.

I take it that you have a surface understanding of social science methods, that you understand what it means to control, but your knowledge doesn't go much beyond the surface. Am I right? The limitations which arise from a small sample size and how controlling for various confounds reduces the samples size of the group under study.

9. The study measures child health and well-being. This includes social well being, with measures such as emotional behavior, mental health, self-esteem, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, among other variables. These measures are listed right in the study. Immunizations was a very, very minor point in the study.

Immunization are an objective metric, well being is a subjective metric dependent on the testing instrument used and the testing instrument can embody bias and when a biased researcher sets out to create a study which support his desired conclusion he can find instruments which will bias the results in his chosen direction. Secondly, and most importantly, when the median age of children being parented by male homosexuals is 2, then the effects of parenting haven't had much time to develop. This study tells us NOTHING about teen outcomes nor adult outcomes yet this researcher is out in the media implying just that. Median age of 2. Goodness gracious, that's astounding.