The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[Kilgore Trout]

I love when homophobes try to rationalize their bigotry as concern and responsibility.

 

[Duck]

Which is why I just shake my head every time a Christian speaks out against hate crimes legislation. Thou shall not kill--unless the person's a homo, transsexual, or some other type of 'sexual deviant.'

Its really fun to point out that religion is all ready a protected class under hate crimes legislation, particularly to those folks that claim letting gays get married will lead to violence against christians.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

One by one then:

-Doesn´t prove that gay parents are worst than straight parents:

A report by J. M. Bailey et al. in Developmental Psychology, commenting on studies of the children of gay and lesbian parents, notes that "available studies [are] insufficiently large to generate much statistical power."10


27-28 They don´t prove that gay parents are worst either, they are just descrediting the other studies without bringing anything in.


59 I am curious about this statement, because a quick wiki search told me that the author says in that book: "How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" argues that children of lesbian and gay parents develop at least as well as those with straight parents, but are more likely themselves to be open to different kinds of relationships.[3]

31 talks about the amount of sexual partners that most (most is the key word there) homosexuals have had. While this is relevant to a point, it is also one of the first things that any competent social worker would take note when analizing the SPECIFIC couple that asked for rights to adopt. This means that this research wouldn´t apply to couples that haven´t had the number of sex partners this study implies most people have had. Besides, number of sexpartners hasnothing to do with number of monogamous relationships. If someone has had a lot of sex partners but the few monogamous relationships s/he has had have been stable and good, that doesn´t disqualify him/her at all to be an emotionaly balanced person.

Furthermore, all the sex partners could very well be from a part of life left behind.


Only ONE of the notes you pointed out couldn´t be discarded in a quick search, and that was 43. But honestly, after the person presenting all those worthless sources as if they had any real importance for his subject, I have no reason to believe that that point was also done in very questionable circumstances.

I said that was the tip of the ice berg. There about 60 more studies

 

[Me Myself]

I said that was the tip of the ice berg. There about 60 more studies

Well, the tip of the iceberg was certainly imaginary.

By all means present the rest of the studies so I can properly debunk them too.

Do keep in mind this one has been left stomped in the mud as it was to be expected.

Bring them on. I´ll be waiting.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Well, the tip of the iceberg was certainly imaginary.

By all means present the rest of the studies so I can properly debunk them too.

Do keep in mind this one has been left stomped in the mud as it was to be expected.

Bring them on. I´ll be waiting.

What do you think I did by posting the bibliography? If you don't want to do the work you don't have to but don't keep pretending like I'm holding something back that's preventing you from doing anything. I posted the article yesterday or two days ago. The articles you "debunked" served the exact purpose the article used them for by making a paticular point. The idea is that all the arguments TOGETHER for the argument

 

[Antiochian]

You don't have the slightest clue about that guy's life except a three minute excerpt in his own words. That guy might practice incest for all you know.

As do plenty of my Baptist relatives.

 

[Antiochian]

And don't forget that he divorced her sometime after she refused and was diagnosed with MS. Calista better hope she stays healthy. She ought to start looking for the tell tale signs of Newt cheating as well, since, well, he was married for 12 years to his first wife, starting cheating on her and carried on the affair for about 6 years before divorcing. Wifey nr 2 ('open marriage') got the same treatment, Newt started carrying on an affair after about 12 years of marriage, kept it up for about 6 years before divorcing. He and Calista got married in 99, so I figure she is about due to be shopped around on any day now.

But he knows all about morality! Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I can't for the life of me figure out how any woman would look twice at him, other than his being rich.

 

[Me Myself]

What do you think I did by posting the bibliography? If you don't want to do the work you don't have to but to keep pretending like I'm holding something back that's preventing you from doing anything. I posted the article yesterday or two days ago. The articles you "debunked" served the exact purpose the article used them for by making a paticular point. The idea is that all the arguments TOGETHER make a powerful point

The argument of "altogether" makes no sense here though.

I read the biography and as told you by the begining, all the parts that talk about gays being incapable of being good parents are eithr outdated (and thus don´t even reach to be eligible to be one of those "·togethr are strong") or the ones that you showed me up there.

Furthermore, as an advertising student, I can understand why you feel the "make" a powerful point. You are not thinking about it. You are "feeling" they make a powerful point. That´s exactly what thaT article meant you to do. Present sources as if they were trustable and make you feel like if there were a lot of reliable studies, when truly, none can stand reasonable scrutiny.

I mean, you just belief because you do. You haven´t cited one single conclusive example. Those are not even worth as circumstancial evidence. If they to the least worked as circumstancial evidence, they would still not be enough all together, because of the same amount of studies that say the opposite in a let´s-pretend circumstancial way at least.

You are trying to show me a forest and say that somewere in it there is a miraculous tree. I tell you I looked and saw none, you point me at a few and tell you how they are not miraculoous and then you tell me "oh well, all those none miraculous and obviously arranged to seem likemiraculous trees in the forest prove that somewhere in this forest some tree is definetely miraculous or all those un,miraculous trees forma big miraculous one"

It´s just makes no sense man. Point at the tree or accept the forest doesn´t have the tree you say it has. Mistakes are human.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The argument of "altogether" makes no sense here though.

.

You spent like 10 minutes on this article and you're telling me you've successfully debunked every point the guy made. Yeah right. On the other hand, maybe you don't see any issue with kids suffering from sexual idenity confusion, incest, promiscuity, little regard for monogamy in marriage, etc. You alo completely missed studies 68-70, all done in the mid to late 90s, which specifically talked about the need for children to have a mom and dad.

 

[Me Myself]

You spent like 10 minutes on this article and you're telling me you've successfully debunked every point the guy made. Yeah right

That grave part is that I did and you haven´t proven otherwise.

I mean I continue to dare you to put up a decent study that he cited and you have so far failed on that.

You say this forest is filled with miraculous trees. Show me one that isn´t a fake.

The problem is that after so many fake miraculous trees that are visibly deliverately twisted by human hands to look like the real thing, how should I trust the next tree in the same forest just because I can´t see how the fakeness was made?

I mean if someone tells you source after source all of them bing untrustable how can you trust any source he says?

You should find a new article all together. To many of his source wouldn´t be used by any serious sociologists today, and it clearly shows why he is a theologist not a sociologist or psychologist.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That grave part is that I did and you haven´t proven otherwise.

I mean I continue to dare you to put up a decent study that he cited and you have so far failed on that.

You say this forest is filled with miraculous trees. Show me one that isn´t a fake.

The problem is that after so many fake miraculous trees that are visibly deliverately twisted by human hands to look like the real thing, how should I trust the next tree in the same forest just because I can´t see how the fakeness was made?

I mean if someone tells you source after source all of them bing untrustable how can you trust any source he says?

You should find a new article all together. To many of his source wouldn´t be used by any serious sociologists today, and it clearly shows why he is a theologist not a sociologist or psychologist.

I edited that post

 

[Me Myself]

On the other hand, maybe you don't see any issue with kids suffering from sexual idenity confusion, incest, promiscuity, little regard for monogamy in marriage, etc.

I have little to no idea what you mean by any of these.

If you see one of the sources that your source deem to be a good one then this would be the proper way to put it:

(kids with gay parents) develop at least as well as those with straight parents, but are more likely themselves to be open to different kinds of relationships.

And no, I ahve no problem with people open to know themselves and others better in responsable ways that doesn´t hurt them or others. Being that neither homosexuality nor bisexuality nor "promiscuity" is ilegal, the propensity to become any of them should not be seen as a reasonable reason to deny gays the right to adopt.

Furthermore, we need more Homosexuals. I don´t know if you are aware we have a population problem, they could very well be our heroes in this crisis.

You alo completely missed studies 68-70, all done in the mid to late 90s, which specifically talked about the need for children to have a mom and dad.

I did? ok, I might re-check, but quite honestly, why do you think any of the studies put forth by this theologian with no degrees on psychology or sociology have any standing after so many of the researches he has used thinking that were good were not even done in a reasonable generational frame?

He clearly doesn´t know how to diferentiate relevant studies from non relevant, so how do the studies he put forth have any credibility?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I have little to no idea what you mean by any of these.

If you see one of the sources that your source deem to be a good one then this would be the proper way to put it:

(kids with gay parents) develop at least as well as those with straight parents, but are more likely themselves to be open to different kinds of relationships.

And no, I ahve no problem with people open to know themselves and others better in responsable ways that doesn´t hurt them or others. Being that neither homosexuality nor bisexuality nor "promiscuity" is ilegal, the propensity to become any of them should not be seen as a reasonable reason to deny gays the right to adopt.

Furthermore, we need more Homosexuals. I don´t know if you are aware we have a population problem, they could very well be our heroes in this crisis.




I did? ok, I might re-check, but quite honestly, why do you think any of the studies put forth by this theologian with no degrees on psychology or sociology have any standing after so many of the researches he has used thinking that were good were not even done in a reasonable generational frame?

He clearly doesn´t know how to diferentiate relevant studies from non relevant, so how do the studies he put forth have any credibility?

Most of the studies were done in the 90s and yes they are very critical of homosexual homes. That is, unless you consider far higher rates of promiscuity, incest, sexual identity and gender confusion, and a lack of regard for true monogamy/marriage, to be perfectly healthy. If you feel that way, then you may not be impressed with the findings of many of the studies, especially those used in the body of the article. That's not including the studies which show a higher degree of mental problems, suicide, substance abuse, and violence in homosexual households, problems which will all predictably be blamed on a heterosexual's widespread lack of acceptance of homosexuality by gay advocates. The first part of the article, which contained some of the studies you "debunked" as being inconclusive, was spent debunking some of the pro gay adoption studies that had been conducted. The conclusion uses studies 68-71, which stress a child's need for a mom and dad, to bring it home

 

[Nakosis]

It's just a game.

I know maybe to make Christians happy they could make it so only the evil Empire allows homosexual relationship.

Actual the Jedi aren't allow and relationships of any kind. So maybe just have the kids of Christian families be Jedi's. Or maybe just don't let their kids play at all. There's an idea.

You know you can be very evil in the game and torture/kill people. I guess that's not so much a problem.

 

[McBell]

It's just a game.

I know maybe to make Christians happy they could make it so only the evil Empire allows homosexual relationship.

Actual the Jedi aren't allow and relationships of any kind. So maybe just have the kids of Christian families be Jedi's. Or maybe just don't let their kids play at all. There's an idea.

You know you can be very evil in the game and torture/kill people. I guess that's not so much a problem.

golly.
MY jedi has gotten laid twice and I am looking to score with another....

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

It's just a game.

I know maybe to make Christians happy they could make it so only the evil Empire allows homosexual relationship.

Actual the Jedi aren't allow and relationships of any kind. So maybe just have the kids of Christian families be Jedi's. Or maybe just don't let their kids play at all. There's an idea.

You know you can be very evil in the game and torture/kill people. I guess that's not so much a problem.

I want to ensure that tobacco products get their fair share of advertisement as well. I wonder if they could make a marlboro man gunslinger pilot type with the face of Harrison Ford?

 

[Nakosis]

I want to ensure that tobacco products get their fair share of advertisement as well. I wonder if they could make a marlboro man gunslinger pilot type with the face of Harrison Ford?

Sorry no smoking but you can make a character with the Harrison Ford chin scar. They do have drugs and slavery.

There was a game called Mass Effect 2 which had a lot of characters smoking and homosexual relationships.

Again by Bioware.

 

[Nakosis]

golly.
MY jedi has gotten laid twice and I am looking to score with another....

Really? That's just wrong.
I'm going to complain now.

 

[Drolefille]

I mean this in the most sicncere way, I'm not trying to be a prick. Do you understand how a bibliography and footnotes work? Every one of those studies quoted has a footnote so that you can check when it was originally published in the bibliography. There are no secrets here. It's right there in plain English if you care enough to look

Do you understand that those studies were willfully misinterpreted and came from biased sources? That critical information about the populations of those studies was left out of the THEOLOGIAN's BLOG, and that he doesn't even bother to use the same standards of evidence for sources that agree vs. those that disagree with him?

The man is unqualified to talk about the research and you really have no room to be insulting someone else's understanding of it using his work. These arguments were all but laughed out of the courtroom in the Prop 8 trial for this very reason.

What do you think I did by posting the bibliography? If you don't want to do the work you don't have to but don't keep pretending like I'm holding something back that's preventing you from doing anything. I posted the article yesterday or two days ago. The articles you "debunked" served the exact purpose the article used them for by making a paticular point. The idea is that all the arguments TOGETHER for the argument

You didn't do any work, you hit "Ctrl-C" and "Ctrl-V"

He debunks a handful of the studies, and you claim that they're only part of the whole. Shadow_Wolf and I debunk the entire article and you claim we're incompetent. You can't move the goalposts back any further because if you did they'd be in Taiwan. The article is unscientific garbage, plain and simple. Its citation of sources does not grant it an immutable authoritative quality, it just shows how unqualified the author is to write on the topic.

You actually have no evidence that his post is correct, you're just clinging onto it and using it to justify lying about gays and lesbians. Use the bible, at least Dailey would be qualified to write on that subject, but don't pretend to understand science by using his muck.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Do you understand that those studies were willfully misinterpreted and came from biased sources? That critical information about the populations of those studies was left out of the THEOLOGIAN's BLOG, and that he doesn't even bother to use the same standards of evidence for sources that agree vs. those that disagree with him?

The man is unqualified to talk about the research and you really have no room to be insulting someone else's understanding of it using his work. These arguments were all but laughed out of the courtroom in the Prop 8 trial for this very reason.



You didn't do any work, you hit "Ctrl-C" and "Ctrl-V"

He debunks a handful of the studies, and you claim that they're only part of the whole. Shadow_Wolf and I debunk the entire article and you claim we're incompetent. You can't move the goalposts back any further because if you did they'd be in Taiwan. The article is unscientific garbage, plain and simple. Its citation of sources does not grant it an immutable authoritative quality, it just shows how unqualified the author is to write on the topic.

You actually have no evidence that his post is correct, you're just clinging onto it and using it to justify lying about gays and lesbians. Use the bible, at least Dailey would be qualified to write on that subject, but don't pretend to understand science by using his muck.

I've already expressed my belief that you've demonstrated a willingness to put your own sexual gratification over the need to promote stability in families through your polyamorous lifestyle. I believe you're totally unfit to judge what's in the best interest of families. I believe when one's primary goal is sexual gratification they'll ignore or twist any data available which demonstrates that their desires are incompatible with promoting a stable family.