A country that does the right thing, finally.

Remove all ads!

Ok, guys, Granny is going to step in and play arbitrator, maybe not the right word.

Cool It

Your in a no win situation. Neither is going to persuade the other even if this thread lasts until the trumpet sounds.

We all have personal opinions about this based on what we've been taught, what we have experienced and what we've read, heard etc and prehaps most of all our own perceived sexual persuasion.

Hey what about a duel to decide the winner? Choose your weapons, Gentlemen.

 

How about pistols at the centre of highway 61 (bound to be symbolic of something).

It's your call: if you want to cool it, then let's cool it, if not, well...

 

@Tal:
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my "the first impression can be overcome" statement, but the paragraph looks like it got quickly hijacked by my pessimism over the whole situation.

@Kurtz:

Sorry to steal your line Tal, but "...then you can take it to PM." Of course, knowing Tal, he's probably already taken care of it.

 

Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: (the study is independant of the website)
Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents

Well I'm going to let you in on a little fact I've noticed. Everytime I've posted...you've posted too.

We're back to the majority point, we've been through this before. What the majority believes is not always right, if you believe it is, think again about the holocaust and racism. Of course that doesn't make the majority always wrong either. That's the point, the majority view is no standard for judging anything.

"Throwing labels, insults and accusations at the majority." I've "thrown" one label at you.
1. I've not greater reason to assume you're the majority than you have to think I am.
2. I've made my case for this label in another post, you haven't respond to the issue I raised there.

 

The other thing I noticed about this last link at least, is that the research is totally invalid. 37 samples are nowhere's near enough to make a valid psychological claim, the participants were "non-random", meaning they were hand-pick on some criteria or other, and they compared them to single mothers, a readily accepted worst-case scenario by the people who are opposed to it. Its like the russians in 1960? showing there citizens film clips of America in the grips of the Great Depression to try and show them the 'evils of capitalism'.

Sorry if this sounds agressive, but I really have a problem with bad scientific method.

 

Well, you could roll stones at each other. Sorry, it's the best I could do on short notice.

 

@ Tal

Googling for Ellen C. Perrin, I found several results. By no means were they limited to gay parenthood. Her name showed up in references of reports dealing with other situations relevant for a child's psyche. In under a minute. Why is that so?

Edit -- I also think it curious to harp at a site that, more or less, has the character of a flyer, making statements of how all of it is invalid and bad science -- and then ignore the second report, which is of a more indepth nature.

[ January 10, 2006, 00:41: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Well, that only deals with one of the reports. I know its not definitive, I didn't say it was, I posted the report for you to read because it makes clear its limitations, and because there is simply to little research on the area to be able to just ignore any report. Therefore I still thought it was worth linking.

Here's the non-random bit:

That would bias it a bit, but I shouldn't think too much. Same for the small sample. I agree its very small, but you can still draw conclusions from it, you just have to be cautious. Bear in mind that the other report offers the same conclusions.

Here's another report:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ct0t7-_ZhhUJ:www.france.qrd.org/assocs/apgl/documents/sons.rtf+%22Sexual+orientation+of+adult+sons+of+gay+fathers%22&hl=en - Sexual Orientation Of Adult Sons Of Gay Fathers

Well, guess what, all your posts seem to raise questions to me.

[Leave that link, it's too ugly to work with url tags. -Tal]

[ January 10, 2006, 02:11: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

@ Kurtz

That last article you provided is from March 1994. I think some more up-to-date content is needed if that's to prove anything.

Heh, well you can pretty much draw conclusions from everything. What is important is not really that you can make a conclusion, but rather what drove you to this conclusion (i.e. upon which *known* facts can you draw your conclusion), and of course the content of your conclusion. Anyway neither of you can really draw any conclusion(I'm going in circles, ain't I?), seeing as most of the stuff in the reports seems to be either out-dated, in too small a scale to really prove anything, or most importantly: not facts! So I would dare say you cannae do anything but make "syllogisms"...(probably incorrectly used term? I couldn't come up with anything else that really reflected my thoughts about this ) which is really not saying much if you want to prove something. And this is the heart of the problems with this thread: Neither of you can really prove anything... So you're just going in circles saying the same things over and over, again and again.

So what do I want to prove with this post of mine? Not really anything but that everyone ought to be more cautious with what they link to when trying to prove a point...

 

Well, I'm not too concerned that the participants of the study were not randomly selected. They were targeting a specific group with this study, and therefore they needed representatives of that group. Seems like advertising in a magazine targeting such groups is a logical way to reach members of that group. That having been said, yeah, a sample size of 37 is pretty darn small. Typically, 30 is considered the minimum before you can even run any type of meaningful statistical calculations.

 

I see. Though... why? You are not, it seems, interested in the research done by her, but only in discrediting it. Not finding anything about her funding/sexual orientation, you still go on about dreck pro-gay "research". Does that strike you as fair? Why is research not supportive of your opinion "pro-gay" to begin with, rather then evidence indicating there may indeed be no harm involved?

This whole pro-gay thing feels not unlike accusations of anti-americanism. Something you, I think, are familiar with. Speaks of a mindset that wont recognize or accept, under any circumstances, the validity of a point made, but is only focused on the perceived ill wishes that the other side simply has to be motivated by. I feel that is a regrettable attitude.

 

You know, I see a lot of folks attacking the pro-gay research currently available about child rearing, etc, etc. I just want to point out that there is also absolutely no conclusive research on the other side of the issue either. In fact, studies done to show increased levels of sexual abuse, phsycological damage or even increased frequency homosexuality(!) amongst those raised by homosexuals have all turned up inconclusive or reached the opposite conclusion.

By all appearances, children raised by gay parents turn out just as normal as any other kids. There have been no credible studies showing otherwise. Our uncomfortability with this issue is really just a case of our religious and cultural sensibilities overriding other factors.

 

Defend kids from what? Gay men are no less likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. The kids gay couples raise turn out straight just as often as kids raised by straight parents. The only negative thing that these kids might have to deal with is that they may be made fun of in middle school for having two dads. Frankly, everyone gets made fun of for something in middle school, so I fail to see how that is a big deal.