I think we decided a while back that lesbians should under no circumstances be allowed to raise children.

One day the artificial womb will be invented, and we can gently let the female gender go extinct.

i don't care about that guy and i don't care about what you have to say.

i will accept gay parenting the moment a big enough statistical research ( the one usually linked to 4chan has extremely small numbers, like 50 couples) show that mental illness, grades in school, social problems, homosexuality rates in children raised by gay couples are comparable with the ones of hetero couples selected with the same criteria.

i don't think feels or "human rights" have something to do with that. we should care only about child's rights, not gay couples rights.

if statistics will prove that a m/m and/or w/w couple is a good enough family model then it is, otherwise it is not.

and the comparison is of course between hetero couples adopting and gay couples adopting, selected with the same criteria of family stability. it's obvious that a decent gay couple would be better than a broken divorced hetero couple were one of the parents has drinking problems.

>>965687
>homosexuality rates in children raised by gay couples are comparable with the ones of hetero couples
why would this matter? Are you implying that being homosexual is a bad thing? I doubt they would be the same, if only because homosexual kids raised by homosexual parents would be less likely to repress their sexuality and stay closeted.

File: 1374267058481.jpg-(93 KB, 800x532, tumblr_m6fpwnSskQ1r2qr2so(...).jpg)

93 KB JPG

>>965687
you'll accept gay parenting under the condition that gays first parent to prove they can do a good job?

>>965651

No, that was a wet dream you had.

This isn't proof of shit. It's an op-ed from a reactionary think tank.

>>965687
>i will accept gay parenting the moment a...

But you're lying. If it were up to you no gays could ever "parent" a child...which is telling, since your problem isn't even just with adoption, it's with gays HAVING children, even their own. You're just another worthless Christfuck lying bitch.

Fortunately, the decision really isn't up to you at all. You can vote, but votes really only go so far due to the electoral college and the fact that most of these matters are being determined by the courts at this point. Which is the right way to do it, because this is not a voting matter. People shouldn't get to vote to remove other people's rights. This is a criminal matter, the crime of gay people being denied rights by people like you, and how that needs to go. And it will. And then you will like it.

>>965706
>if only because homosexual kids raised by homosexual parents would be less likely to repress their sexuality and stay closeted.


that's why i said comparable.

>why would this matter? Are you implying that being homosexual is a bad thing?

it matters because it means they deviated theyr sexuality, if the difference in percentuals is big enough.
it would mean that a good percentual of those kids were not supposed to grow up as homosexual.

>>965749
>But you're lying. If it were up to you no gays could ever "parent" a child...which is telling, since your problem isn't even just with adoption, it's with gays HAVING children, even their own. You're just another worthless Christfuck lying bitch.


are you some the effect of some kind of bad drug?

i just said i would totally support gay parenting.

but onoly if it was proved to be as good as hetero parenting.
i have no problem at all, on the other hand you sound quite crazy.


you started your comment wit saying i am lying.
what the fucking hell. i wrote that comment it means i am not lying, not on an anonymous board.

and i was talking only about gay couples adopting cihldren because it's the most easy and objective way to test and see the matters to determine if gay parenting in its entirety it's good for the children or not.
gay parents with a previously conceived child falls almost entirely in divorced couples or single mother-couples, which are by default a bad enviroment for a child, a stable relationship,even if homosexual, can only make them better.

the second part of your comment is the msot crazy and sad rant i've ever read on 4chan and i've been years on /b/ and /v/ goddamn.

do you realize gay rights doesn't matter at all? childs are the focus of parenting and the ones that holds the precedence in any kind of rights.

>>965835
And I just called you a liar.

>>965844
and that's quite stupid isn't it?

>>965835
I mostly agree but...

What if gay parents proved to be better than hetro parents? Should we ban hetero adoptions?

>>965855
Calling a liar a liar? I don't think so.

>>965620 (OP)
growing up with a single mother wasn't fun, 2 women ruling it over me would have made it even less fun. so it's not all that ridiculous.

>>965905
>i dont like my mom
>so 2 moms would've been worse
>therefore all lesbians are bad mothers
dat elementary school logic

>>965861
goodluck with that when gays are a tiny minority relatively speaking.
>>965922
stop skewing everything to suit your agenda. i don't know, because there's no studies worth a damn on the subject.

there are however studies showing children raised by single mothers are worse-off. even more so than single fathers. now that may not apply to 2 women but then again it might, especially if they try to raise a male.

so, since the only way to really know is to have a few hundred if not a few thousand sacrificial lambs so to speak to provide statistical evidence, i'm not for it.

File: 1374269583991.png-(576 KB, 666x600, 1363032258448.png)

576 KB PNG

>>965687
Hadn't the American Academy of Pediatrics say something to this effect a few months ago, stating that, in fact, gay parenting was ok?
Citation needed though, so I might be remembering wrong, but I doubt it.

>>965956
guaranteed to be theory babble without any significant statistics behind them.

>>965861
>What if gay parents proved to be better than hetro parents? Should we ban hetero adoptions?


i am going to be faithful to my reasoning and logic.

absolutely yes. that's correct.

but not quite:

i don't know what the share of hetero and gay adoption would be but i suspect there wouldn't be enough gay adopter to cover the need.

actually, since the focus of the rights are the children, it should all be up to them.

if there are more gay couples that want to adopt than children that needs an adoption then adoption by gay couples should have the precedence.
that sounds natural as the kids would live better.

i don't know how adoption are actually given now.
i suppose the couple just have to possess certain qualities then they would enter in a purely time-base ranking and slowly wait till they receive a child that fits them.

in that scenario hetero couple wouldn't be disqualified as they are already able to perform decently. unless of course the difference would be too big and the amount of children too low.

when i said "comparable" i didn't mean necessarily lower. just respectably close, and this would work both ways, with a complete symmetry.

finally in the case between hetero or homo couples one was found significantly worse than the other, then we could simply solve it by raising the stability requirement of one type of couple.

for example if the average hetero couple stable by 5 years has double the chance of raising a depressed child than the same gay couple then raising the requirement from 5 to 8 years might statistically solve the problem.

that works both ways.

why the fuck no? the whole point of denying or allowing adoption is to maximize the chance of the child to grow sane.

Hetero couple > Gay couple > Single father > Wolf pack > Single mother > Orphanage > Lesbian couple

>>965937
for the greater good studies should always be allowed.

we can easily use sweden as a test-field. idk if gay adoption is already allowed there but i suppose we would have to just wait few years if it isn't already.

it's not like those adopted children are going to die.
at worse we expect a (stable) gay couple to have like double rate on some kind of mental/growth/success problems.
we already have some little data to work on and there is no horrible 70% homosexuality rate or 50% chronic depression rate. it would be quite surprising if a gay couple would score worse than a lone-mother for example.

>>965937
>your agenda
hurr duh libruls gerna turk ur gurns and furdums

I don't have a political agenda, because I don't even fucking vote. "studies show" is a cop out, and more importantly studies don't mean shit. You need DATA and not CORRELATIONAL data, you need to prove causation. Something you fucktard "hurr family unit" dipshits have never been able to do

>children raised by single mothers are worse off, even more do than single fathers
Single mothers often end up raising children they don't really want. They always end up with the kids by default. Only about 30% of men even fight for custody of their children, so if a man is a single father, it's because he really wanted his children.

>>965986
i don't get all the hate on lesbian and single woman. but i want to share my personal experience.

i was raised by a perfectly stable hetero couple. married. and i have a little sister.

but i almost never talk to my father and the amount of words and moments we share is quite minimal.
it's mostly just me and my mother and sister.

i feel haunted by them, i really feel the need of manly father figure. a superhero to look at and imitate.

i honestly think it would have been much worse without my father sitting at dinner every day. he doesn't do much, i need more, but my mother is much more an oppressive figure just by being a mother.
i can't really share much with her, she hasn't be able to teach me much but being a sissy loser.

>>966012
>hurr duh libruls gerna turk ur gurns and furdums
if you say so
>Something you fucktard "hurr family unit" dipshits have never been able to do
straight couples don't need to 'prove' anything since they are the norm that the human species has been following for who knows how many thousands of years. you advocate for a deviancy from this norm using the premise that same-sex couples are not on average more harmful as parents. despite the fact that doing so deprives one child of a suitable role-model and provides the other child with a guaranteed abnormal role-model.
>"studies show" is a cop out
there are no studies worth speaking of so there is no cop-out except by the pro side using small samples as proof.

>>966008
>it's not like those adopted children are going to die.
human experimentation that is involuntary is immoral, i won't support it.

>>966020
this sounds like a gem of truth.

however to balance it out and make it not shine brigther than what it really is, i have to say that regardless of what men wants women , having mtoher instict, have an higher change to want to grow a child.
and even after that most mothers end up loving and wanting the children even if they didn't want to get pregnant in the first istance.

finally men that don't want the children, compared to women that don't want the children, can't choose to abort.


it would be quite hard to filter out the results considering all these factors.

>>966061
>straight couples
I never said straight couples need to prove anything, it is you moronic teavangelicals that need to back up your shit when you say gays can't be good parents.
>deviancy
and your attempt at seeming knowledgeable goes straight into the trash
>despite the fact that doing so deprives one child of a suitable role-model and provides the other child with a guaranteed abnormal role-model.
Where do you get this bullshit? This assumption-ridden bullshit has no real value, you're imposing your asinine attempt at political propaganda upon every child and you have the audacity to say "let's think of children's rights."
>the pro side using small samples as proof
Luckily, we are nearing an age where minorities don't have to "justify their existence" to every uneducated jeebuser

>>966074
>human experimentation that is involuntary is immoral, i won't support it.

datas about your existence are gathered all the times. and that's not immoral.

social experiments are needed and this would't be much harmful.

also there are way to do that without actually ending up with lot of bad results.

>>966104
>moronic teavangelicals
you forgot to add dipshit from your last tirade.
>and your attempt at seeming knowledgeable goes straight into the trash
you need to stop thinking everything is an insult. deviancy is an actual technical term, look at the context of the phrase in that post.
>Where do you get this bullshit?
so, tell me, where does a lesbian couple get a male role-model for their son? one of them being butch and beefy isn't going to pass.
>Luckily, we are nearing an age where minorities don't have to "justify their existence" to every uneducated jeebuser
ok? let's not go off on a tangent.
>>966114
>datas about your existence are gathered all the times. and that's not immoral.
that's not experimentation.
>social experiments are needed
they are useful and can give useful info in any case.
>this would't be much harmful.
oh, 'much'. well, since that's the case we should start testing chemicals we deem not to be 'too' harmful on the populace through the water supply so we can get really good study samples. this experiment very clearly has the potential to fuck a person up psychologically, nevermind 'anecdotal' evidence like the guy in OP's article. fucking with peoples lives in this manner is immoral, abhorrent, disgusting, there are more words i could use and i do not support it.
>also there are way to do that without actually ending up with lot of bad results.
i'd be interested in seeing what these methods are.

File: 1374272452475.jpg-(5 KB, 200x200, putin_yeahsure.jpg)

5 KB JPG

>>965687

I think religious fanatics should only be allowed to raise children once it's scientifically proven that mental illness, grades in school, social problems, heterosexuality rates in children raised by religious extremist couples are comparable with the ones of atheist/agnostic/moderately religious couples selected with the same criteria.

I think racists should only be allowed to raise children once it's scientifically proven that mental illness, grades in school, social problems, racism rates in children raised by racist couples are comparable with the ones of nonracist couples selected with the same criteria.

I could go on all day with this...

Actually it's not a very apt comparison, because parents are far more likely to raise their children to be religious fanatics or racists than they are to be gay/lesbian, and FAR more likely to succeed in such an attempt.

After all, most gays/lesbians were raised by straight parents, presumably to be straight, and yet turned out not to be.

>>966166
>where does a lesbian couple get a male role-model for their son?
because every household needs a male and female role model, and children can only have parents as role models now?... because your judeo-christian values ordain it to be so? Really.

>>966198
difference is religion and political outlook and racism has nothing to do with family structure.

so you need to stop using red herrings. or comparing apples and oranges.

>>966211
You were just complaining about role models in gay households, and then dismiss racists and religious extremists as "apples and oranges." Its very clear you are just a bigot.

>>966205
>because every household needs a male and female role model
yes you do. society revolves around hetero couples not the minority who deviate from the standard. raising a child in same-sex households will deprive the child of role-models from whom a child is supposed to learn how things work.
>and children can only have parents as role models now?
sounds to me like a broken family if you need someone else to come in and help you raise your kids properly.
>because your judeo-christian values ordain it to be so? Really.
heterosexuality pre-dates religion you know.
>>966216
is it that hard to grasp? you can have racist and religious extremist lesbians and gays. the views of the people in question are not relevant to the core point that a hetero couple is how the species works and raising kids in same-sex couples will have an impact and can for a fact have negative results. now it may be that statistically the number of screwed up kids will be equal but the requirement to know this is a study with a very large number of children which falls under human experimentation. which is immoral, in my opinion and which is why i don't support it.

>>966216
It's just another /pol/tard trying to be clever.
Would be cute if it weren't so obvious and pathetic.

>>966249
>raising a child in same-sex households will deprive the child of having my political agenda shoved down their throats*
fixd

>>966280
no, it will deprive them of knowing how to act like a man or woman and how relations work between genders since the child will more than likely be straight.

>>966289
also, even if the child turns out to be homo like the parents, it will still be denied the knowledge of how most of the world's relations works. which is detrimental.

>>966289
you're arguing on unproven assumptions, therefore your argument has no merit. bye

>can't understand body language, non-verbal cues, etc

asperger's

>mannerisms picked up exclusively from people at home (women) because shy and not enough friends

asperger's

>let other people impose beliefs on me and convince me that I was gay

pussy

>>966314
except i'm not.
males and females do have genetic dispositions to how they behave but a lot of it is also social, it's one of the reasons why there are so many different cultures on the world instead of one single culture governed by our genetics.
you ignoring this because it get's in the way of your favoured outlook on life is going to do you any favours.
>>966323
your thought is that all social cues, norms, rules and un-written laws you know from birth. you never had to learn from your parents and surroundings?

with that outlook on life you must wonder what the purpose of parents is at all other than as money-bags.

>>966323

I'd like to point out Asperger's is something you're born with. IE his mom's parenting and sexuality didn't make him a shitty person, her uterus did.

if it is necessary for a child to have both a mother and a father, we might as well ban single parents

>>966346
>your thought is that all social cues, norms, rules and un-written laws you know from birth. you never had to learn from your parents and surroundings?
>surroundings

It's not like they never let him out of the trailer. He went to school.

Dude really sounds like an angry aspie to me.

>>966398
so your view is that it's ok to have screwy same-sex adopters since they are only as bad as the single parents? that's not much of a leg to stand on.

sharing the misery works though so if you really want to campaign for a ban on single parent adoptions then go for it. it's already pretty hard for a single parent to adopt though, the standards are high for them.

>>966444
i'm just saying: it's either both or neither

>>965651
>>965673
>tfw gay male couple pedophiles
>tfw no political gay will ever acknowledge this
>tfw no face

>>966441
>It's not like they never let him out of the trailer. He went to school.
and he still grew up messed up and lacking knowledge. you pick up a lot by observing the surroundings, with enough time you can over-come lack of role-models, the writer did it seems, eventually. not sure that makes it ok though.
>>966453
why?
a single parent only lacks one role-model, a same-sex couple lacks both for the kid.
anyhow, no denying that single parents are a bad idea but putting them in the same basket as same-sex couples is fallacious.

>Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend,
Hahahaha.

He has no girlfriend so he's blaming anything he can find, just like anyone who's a virgin loser in adulthood. Speaking of which, do you know how many kids have traditional homes and are still virgin nerds in their 30s? Lots. Guess how many of them also blame their parents? Clearly we should just have robotic computer parents that do everything right so we'll grow up correctly. Someone should start building them, those perfect parents, so none of us will ever be angry 30 year old virgins again.

>>966101
Just because a woman loves a child after she has it doesn't mean she doesn't resent the fact that she has to devote most her time to a child she didn't plan for. Nor does it means she's going to be prepared to take care of another human being or give up all her old habits for the sake of her child's well-being. Nor does it mean that she's not going to feel morally conflicted about aborting her own child if she's unprepared for it.

And a man may not be able to abort his child, but he's still able to send in a child support check every month without ever bothering to see his kid.

There are a shit ton of ways a woman can get stuck with a kid she's not prepared to raise whereas a man has to make a conscious effort just to get the kid on the weekends.

>>966480
How are they any more likely that straight pedo parents/foster parents (of which there are plenty)?

That said, if anyone gets caught adopting kids so they can molest them, fucking hang them, hetero or homo.

There was that "gay couple" in the UK that caught doing this recently, I don't see a lot of gay men rushing to defend them, whereas I saw quite a few calling for their head on a platter.

>>966564
Worst thing about having 2 mothers is that someone is always on the rag.
Joking aside though, i had a friend who had 2 mothers, and he turned out wonderful.

>>966596
Could you tell me more about him? I'm really curious.

Was he raised by them from birth?
Did he turn out gay, straight, bi?
Is he effeminate at all?
If he's straight, how is his dating history with women?
What are his moms like?

As a lesbo who might consider having children one day, I would like to know.

>>966646
>Was he raised by them from birth?
No clue
>Did he turn out gay, straight, bi?
No clue
>Is he effeminate at all?
Not at all.
>If he's straight, how is his dating history with
women?
I never asked him
>What are his moms like?
One a butch who owned a motorcycle, the other a seemingly straight acting woman.

Sorry i'm no help.

>>966662
How long we're you friends? Aren't friends supposed to talk about that sort of shit?

>>966670
For like a year or 2, and we were like 13, so i didn't think it was appropriate to ask.

Every "study" I have found comparing abuse rates of adoptive or surrogate children between hetero and homo couples is usually blatantly biased to one way or the other. I will say that the astronomically high number of sexual partners that gay men usually have in comparison to straight men is a major red flag for me.

>>966680
Ah ok.

>>966529
Don't several Christian kids leave high school as virgins? Does that mean that Christian parenting is child abuse too?

>>966705
You're conflating averages with individuals though.

The kind of guys that want to get married, adopt kids, etc. are typically not the same ones that have zillions and zillions of partners.

Those guys tend to blow the curve, so to speak.

I've known guys who will literally put out at the drop of a hat, and others who've been in monogamous relationships for decades.

>>966754
I should probably clarify my position a bit more. I'm a straight, white, libertarian male and by red flag I only meant that on the whole it would make me a bit uneasy. But I absolutely agree that that is no reason to make a predetermination on an individual basis, nor is it any reason to not allow someone to adopt. All I was really trying to say is I think there is a chance there would be higher rates of abuse among gay couples than straight couples, not including single parents of course.

>>965673

Good thing parthenogenesis in humans is already possible and males are already on the way out then.

>>966749
>don't several Christian kids leave high school as virgins?

lolwut? No. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. They are the very first ones to lose it at a drunken party. Unless you mean the snake worshipping Christians who speak in tongues then yes. But other than that, Christians are hardly known for actually practicing the morals they preach.

>>965835
>it matters because it means they deviated theyr sexuality
Ok now I know you're a troll. Couldn't you also say that the fact straight parents had fewer homo kids means that the straight parents were "deviating" their sexuality? It's a nonsensical argument.

>>966800
Lol, this. Has anyone even STARTED on this artificial womb nonsense?

>>966804
Not him, but it's not really a "deviation" if heterosexuality is the norm and necessary for the survival of the species.

>>966779
Well, unfortunately, there are a lot of guys that abuse their daughters, and quite a few that abuse their sons, among straight couples.

The only statistic that seems to be widely agreed upon is that males are more likely to be molesters than females, and apparently even that is changing somewhat these days.

Given the extra scrutiny they are likely to find themselves under, I suspect if anything gays would be less likely to molest their kids - though I am sure it will happen.

There are a lot of seriously fucked up people out there.

>>966835
>The only statistic that seems to be widely agreed upon is that males are more likely to be molesters than females

On the other hand, children are much more likely to be abused overall by females.

I think the only thing we can be certain of, is everybody is fucked up.

>>966855
>I think the only thing we can be certain of, is everybody is fucked up.
Amen to that.

>>966249
>I will only support gays raising kids if a large scale study is done
>doing a large scale study on gays raising kids would be immoral
>therefore gays can never raise kids

Well.

>>966481
>a single parent only lacks one role-model, a same-sex couple lacks both for the kid.
lol wtf.
>one parent = one role model
>two parents = zero role models
great logic there.

>>966834
>implying if everyone was gay humanity would disappear
>implying people wouldn't be smart enough to figure out that society needed children

>>965620 (OP)

This is hating your parents taken to a whole new level.

the truth is finally coming out. you homose are done.

LONG LIVE AMERICA!!

>>967159
well, if you can think of a way other than a huge study that messes with peoples lives i'd be glad to hear it.
>>967184
a homo individual isn't a fitting role-model for a child who will most likely be hetero.
though that's something you can argue against well enough i reckon.

LED I NEED HELP

>>969801
>well, if you can think of a way other than a huge study that messes with peoples lives i'd be glad to hear it.
you have nothing to base any suspicion that anyone's lives would be adversely impacted by such a thing
>a homo individual isn't a fitting role-model for a child who will most likely be hetero.
by what estimation

>>969801
You make it sound as though homosexuals are some strange alien species with nothing in common with humans. Being a positive role model for your child doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. You show them how to be a decent human being. You treat other people with respect, you instill a good work ethic, and stuff like that. A straight parent can be a good role model to their gay child, and so can a a gay parent be a good role model to their straight child.

>>969827
*nothing on which to base any suspicion

what a crock of shit

0/10 would not read again

>>969827
>you have nothing to base any suspicion that anyone's lives would be adversely impacted by such a thing
but i do. OP's article can be the only such case in the entire world but that is still proof enough that things 'can' go wrong and that there are risks.
>by what estimation
well there's the niggle room isn't there. over-all a decent individual who happens to be gay will most likely do fine as a role-model is an entirely reasonable view. there's also the usually fairly high standards that adoption centers have and maybe only the responsible gay couples will be allowed to adopt.
>>969838
>Being a positive role model for your child doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation.
you're right. like you say, a gay person can teach their kid to be decent, show respect etc, the writer of op's article seems to have had a similarly decent parent, though maybe i'm wrong and he still grew up with a few gears not in synch.

Awww I like flaming faggots and autists

>>969865
>OP's article can be the only such case in the entire world but that is still proof enough that things 'can' go wrong and that there are risks.
In any greater concentration than heterosexual parents? There is absolutely nothing there that provides any reason to suspect this.
>well there's the niggle room isn't there. over-all a decent individual who happens to be gay will most likely do fine as a role-model is an entirely reasonable view. there's also the usually fairly high standards that adoption centers have and maybe only the responsible gay couples will be allowed to adopt.
Then... what is your issue?

>>969908
>There is absolutely nothing there that provides any reason to suspect this.
there's no reason to think the statistics would be the same or comparable either. it's not ok to give the go-ahead to potentially mess up a lot of people lives solely to appease homo couples.
>Then... what is your issue?
my thought process is this.
family isn't a right. a man and a woman can choose to make a family for themselves without it being any business of anyone else. homo couples can't, meaning they have to adopt kids from a state orphanage, which makes the adoption the states business and so society's business as to whether it's ok or not. there is no denying that homo couples are a significant deviation from the norm of how the species works, which is hetero-couples. this means that if it's to be allowed there needs to be evidence to show homo couples are comparable parents statistically. to get these statistics will either take a long time of collecting statistics on lesbians who take donor sperm or it would require allowing thousands of kids into homo couple families as an experiment.
now, a lesbian couple deciding to take donor sperm is no-bodies business so there's no issue there.
a social experiment to provide statistical evidence for homo-couple's as parents requires thousands of involuntary subjects who may or may not come out of it afflicted in any number of ways, significant or not. this kind of human experimentation i don't support.

so in the end it's a catch 22 situation. i need proof that homo couples are at least as good on average but attaining such statistics requires an immoral experiment. so i will not support homo adoptions under ordinary circumstances.

>>970026

> so i will not support homo adoptions under ordinary circumstances

And so it turns out that >>965749 was right all along. Surprise.

>>970039
he's not talking to me so no?

anyhow, in that post he seems to focus on homo's having kids of their own. this isn't anyone's business just as it isn't anyone's business if a crack-whore get's knocked up etc. a persons individual right to make a kid if they want trumps any morality issue. this isn't the case with adoptions though.

>>970026
>there's no reason to think the statistics would be the same or comparable either
yes, there is. there is no greater lack of sense of morals or knowledge of ethics or EFFORT among homosexuals than heterosexuals, so there is every reason to assume that there would be no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parenting in terms of the condition of the upbringing of the child. you would have to have an underlying issue or suspicion to think anything else
>This means that if it's to be allowed there needs to be evidence to show homo couples are comparable parents statistically.
except no, it does not, because there is no reason to suspect otherwise.
>i need proof that homo couples are at least as good on average but attaining such statistics requires an immoral experiment.
but the reason why you require this is arbitrary

>>970055
>so there is every reason to assume that there would be no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parenting
but there is. the very basic fact that they are homo's gives reason. they can still be decent individuals but that doesn't mean they won't still mess the kid up, same way single mothers are often decent individuals but statistically they screw things up as well. hetero couples are a foundation stone of how people have been raised in this species, our psychology evolved in this environment and it is not unreasonable to think that changing the formula may produce un-wanted effects so it's not arbitrary.

>>970075
>the very basic fact that they are homo's gives reason.
this has absolutely no bearing on parenting. you may as well be classifying potential parents eligibility based on their preference of strawberry ice cream over chocolate.
>. they can still be decent individuals but that doesn't mean they won't still mess the kid up, same way single mothers are often decent individuals but statistically they screw things up as well.
to even compare these two suggests an ignorance of why single parents (i notice you specifically said 'mothers') statistically "screw things up", as you so eloquently say it
>hetero couples are a foundation stone of how people have been raised in this species, our psychology evolved in this environment
and this sentence suggests that you think the contemporary heterosexual relationship/couple is in any way representative of what it has been for the majority of human history

>>970101
>this has absolutely no bearing on parenting.
it does, see following
>to even compare these two suggests an ignorance of why single parents etc
you're missing my angle. single parents screw things up because of a fundamental inability. they can't work and raise a kid alone as well as two parents can. homo couples also have a fundamental difference, they are homo raising a hetero child most likely. it is not physically possible for a homo couple to match a hetero couple given they both put in equal effort and love because homo couples are fundamentally different and this will affect the kids whether they like it or not.
>and this sentence suggests that you think the contemporary heterosexual relationship/couple etc
monogomous, polygomous, crèches, it doesn't matter. they all happened in hetero societies, obviously since that is how the species works.

>>970125
>homo couples are fundamentally different
unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion

>>970125
>you're missing my angle. single parents screw things up because of a fundamental inability. they can't work and raise a kid alone as well as two parents can.
and this has absolutely zero similarity to any sort of difference there would be between homosexual and heterosexual parenting.
>they are homo raising a hetero child most likely. it is not physically possible for a homo couple to match a hetero couple given they both put in equal effort and love because homo couples are fundamentally different
you have yet to give any example of how they are "fundamentally different" in any way that isn't completely negligible
>monogomous, polygomous, crèches, it doesn't matter. they all happened in hetero societies,
which goes to show just how much the fact that they were heterosexual even matters considering just how different child rearing has been throughout the ages. and i'm not even speaking in terms of numbers of participants as how roles change

>>970139
do you deny the sky and clouds are different colours as well when it suits you?
>>970140
>you have yet to give any example of how they are "fundamentally different"
are you serious? i feel like i'm being asked to prove a leaf is green here. you don't think a man being attracted to men instead of women is a fundamental difference? you don't think this difference has any bearing on the child being raised despite the huge influence parents have on the development of their kids?
>which goes to show just how much the fact that they were heterosexual even matters
you have drawn a very erroneous conclusion, your political view is affecting your rational thinking. the fact that the method of rearing kids has varied greatly means that monogamous/polygamous/crèches doesn't 'really' matter. it does not mean hetero didn't matter. ofcourse it matters, you wouldn't be here today if your parents hadn't been how the species is supposed to be, hetero. hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, going from one monkey species into another until we became human, all as hetero and you now want to dismiss something this fundamental as not important?

>>970164
>you don't think a man being attracted to men instead of women is a fundamental difference?
when it comes to how that man would raise a child? no. i have no more reason to think that a person's sexual preference would impact their ability to raise a child, positively or adversely, than their preference in music. and neither do you.
>you have drawn a very erroneous conclusion, your political view is affecting your rational thinking.
i suspect that accusation is would be more accurate pointed in your direction.
> the fact that the method of rearing kids has varied greatly means that monogamous/polygamous/crèches doesn't 'really' matter.
yes.
>it does not mean hetero didn't matter.
by what argument?
>ofcourse it matters, you wouldn't be here today if your parents hadn't been how the species is supposed to be, hetero.
your biological argument holds no bearing on the merit of a parent to raise and nurture a child.

Why is it even relevant whether a homosexual couple is better or worse at raising a child than a heterosexual couple?

There are plenty of kids out there that don't get to be adopted and end up being raised in foster care systems because there simply aren't enough heterosexual adoptive parents out there. Ending up with stable, but homosexual, parents is vastly superior to ending up in foster care, regardless of whether its marginally worse than a straight family or not. As far as I'm aware, homosexual couples are not stealing children.

>>970186
>i have no more reason to think that a person's sexual preference would impact their ability to raise a child, positively or adversely, than their preference in music
well, if that's how you see it. i think you're wrong to equate sexual orientation with something as frivolous as music though.
>by what argument?
by the fact that it has been a constant in human history and before we even became human, it is how the species works. if being hetero didn't matter then there would have been alternative ways for the human species to reproduce which were prominent in human history and which allowed things like gay communities to flourish. there were no such things because homo's without technology have no future.
>your biological argument holds no bearing on the merit of a parent to raise and nurture a child.
you are focusing on things a person can chose to do. to be kind etc and are ignoring the things they have no choice over, claiming they have no bearing on the matter. do you not see the error in this? you are not even providing argument for why you think it wouldn't matter despite the fact that hetero has been the species standard for a rather long time now. you may be right, it is possible hetero may not have any significant bearing on the matter but to assume right off the bat and favour homo couples over the kid isn't responsible decision making.
>>970220
same reason drug addicts don't get to adopt. there are questions of negative influence.

>>970236
>well, if that's how you see it. i think you're wrong to equate sexual orientation with something as frivolous as music though.
it has an equal part in the raising of a child.
>by the fact that it has been a constant in human history and before we even became human, it is how the species works. if being hetero didn't matter then there would have been alternative ways for the human species to reproduce which were prominent in human history and which allowed things like gay communities to flourish.
you are, once again, falling back purely into a biological argument where it does not apply.
>you are focusing on things a person can chose to do. to be kind etc
yes. there is no biological component to what makes a good parent, and your argument has been completely biological so far.
>and are ignoring the things they have no choice over, claiming they have no bearing on the matter. do you not see the error in this?
no, i do not see the error in this. i also do not see what your evidence is beyond, effectively, "you can't plug two male ends of an electrical cord into each other."
>but to assume right off the bat and favour homo couples over the kid isn't responsible decision making.
when the only argument otherwise is "you need a man and a woman to make babies so it would only follow only a man and a woman can raise babies because question-mark"? i do not see how I am being irresponsible

>>970257
>it has an equal part in the raising of a child.
complete and utter rubbish. let's not start making random assumptions like this without even a scrap of logic.
>falling back purely into a biological argument where it does not apply.
it does apply because biology influences psychology which means it will affect the kid whether you like it or not.
>there is no biological component to what makes a good parent
this is true over-all. a gay parent can be a 'good' parent..over-all. this doesn't mean their gayness will not affect the child negatively however. this is the problem, the ambiguous area. which you seek to claim has no bearing on the matter, arbitrarily.
>i also do not see what your evidence is
biology influences psychology, it doesn't matter how good a parent you are, your sexual orientation is a major difference from the norm and will affect the child either positively or negatively, or maybe not at all. you could argue that only grade A gay couples who are practically guaranteed to have a net positive influence and outcome despite any possible negatives should be able to adopt but i don't think this answers the question.
>i do not see how I am being irresponsible
you are being irresponsible by ignoring the rather obvious possibility that sexual orientation might have an effect on the rearing of the child. you want to carry on and allow wide-spread adoption despite uncertainties because it benefits gays at the expense of the children in question. you are ignoring the possible negative outcomes and choosing to believe only the positive outcomes can possibly happen. you are being an ostrich. this is irresponsible.

>>970282
>complete and utter rubbish. let's not start making random assumptions like this without even a scrap of logic.
then provide evidence to the contrary, for once.
>it does apply because biology influences psychology
show me how the biology of a parent, any parent, has impacted the psychology of how they raise the child.
>which you seek to claim has no bearing on the matter, arbitrarily.
it would be "arbitrarily" if there was any reason to think otherwise.
>you could argue that only grade A gay couples who are practically guaranteed to have a net positive influence and outcome despite any possible negatives should be able to adopt but i don't think this answers the question.
i would not hold a gay couple to any higher standard than i would a heterosexual couple. why would i?
>you are being irresponsible by ignoring the rather obvious possibility that sexual orientation might have an effect on the rearing of the child.
the "rather obvious possibility" that you cannot even quantify with the "rather obvious" ramifications that you cannot even come close to naming. i am not impressed.
>you want to carry on and allow wide-spread adoption despite uncertainties because it benefits gays at the expense of the children in question.
your wording here betrays any sort of impartiality you have in the argument. you don't honestly think that "there is a possibility"; you have made up your mind on what the ultimate end result would be, whether you have reason to think so or evidence to back up the position or not.
>you are ignoring the possible negative outcomes and choosing to believe only the positive outcomes can possibly happen.
the only positive outcomes i expect is that it would have the exact same rate of failure as a heterosexual couple because there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.

make. an. actual. argument.

>>966803
>Dedicated Christian of any kind.
>losing their virginity at a party.
I went to a school in the country and can confirm this is wrong. They'll lose it in any relationship that lasts at least ~2-3 months, but not at a party with a random.

>>970324
>then provide evidence to the contrary, for once.
i don't need to, i'm not trying to prove one or another, i'm saying there is uncertainty and showing why i think so.
>show me how the biology of a parent, any parent, has impacted the psychology of how they raise the child.
feel free to re-read op's article for an example.
>the "rather obvious possibility" that you cannot even quantify with the "rather obvious" ramifications that you cannot even come close to naming.
i can-not quantify because doing so would be immoral, because it would require thousands of kids to be used as guinea pigs for the gratification of homo couples. if you want ramifications, then again, re-read op's article for possible examples.
>your wording here betrays any sort of impartiality you have in the argument. you don't honestly think that "there is a possibility"; you have made up your mind on what the ultimate end result would be, whether you have reason to think so or evidence to back up the position or not.
please don't start telling me what i think for me. i have made my position rather clear without your help. i am un-certain of the possible negative outcomes and will not support subjecting thousands of kids to an experiment to find out. that is my position. if you're not willing to believe me and choose to paint me some kind of unreasonable villain then shame on you.
>the only positive outcomes i expect is that it would have the exact same rate of failure as a heterosexual couple because there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise.
but there is reason. you choose to ignore that reason though because you don't agree with it which is un-scientific and irresponsible. which is why you are not convincing me.

>>970236
Why did you ignore the second part of my post?

There simple aren't enough heterosexual couples wanting to adopt. There is a surplus of essentially unwanted children.
The situation you're advocating is that thse kids all end up in foster care. Foster care, while supported by extremely well meaning and generous people, is not an ideal way to raise children at all. Kids often find themselves moved from home to home, and very often come out with poor education or emotional problems.

The situation with gay adoption being another alternative means fewer kids in foster systems, and just as many in heterosexual families. The only discussion that I think is relevant is whether a child is better off with stable homosexual parents or in the foster system. If you're arguing that homosexual adoption is worse than foster care then I think you're a fucking moron.

If you're arguing that homosexual adoption shouldn't be allowed because its statistically not ideal, then you need to reconsider hetero adoption, foster care, single parents, poor parents, black parents etc etc. We might as well just cull all children born to non middle class straight white parents right?

Its a matter of comparison. Gay adoption is a far better option than the current last resorts we have in the system. Adding it is only going to make some kids better off than they would be without it.

>>970375
>i'm saying there is uncertainty
You realise that gay couples have been having/raising children for decades right? There is no great uncertainty, there is plenty of evidence out there that these kids have largely grown up just fine.

>feel free to re-read op's article for an example.
OP's article is one example of a kid growing up confused. There are plenty of others that didn't and plenty that have grown up with similar problems without being raised by a same sex couple. What would the situation be with him if his mother had've stayed single? I'd wager no better than the current situation. He's a married father, with a good education and job for crying out loud, how badly could his childhood really have been?

>>970375
>i don't need to, i'm not trying to prove one or another, i'm saying there is uncertainty and showing why i think so.
you are claiming that it is "absolute rubbish" to say that the sexual orientation of the parents has the same ramifications as their taste in ice cream. you are making a claim. back. it. up.
>feel free to re-read op's article for an example.
that's it? your one singular example is this article written by the author of "the colorful conservative", filled with enough non-reinforced "it's likelies" and "posits" so that it maintains the consistency of jelly, and dripping with nothing but venom for the general, shapeless "gay activist"? even if this article had some sort of substance to it, i would have a dozen positive instances of children being raised by gay couples to meet it with. Rob McElhenney being a more famous example.
> if you want ramifications, then again, re-read op's article for possible examples.
nothing in his article suggests his "maladies" were any more from being raised by a gay couple than general or chronic social awkwardness. you are sitting on a forum that would be enough proof to keep all heterosexual parents from ever breeding again, by your standards.
>please don't start telling me what i think for me. i have made my position rather clear without your help.
no, you haven't, because nobody can tell what it is you're even trying to say. all you have said is that "IT COULD BE BAD" because it's different, and then pointed to an absolutely laughable example in this article.
>but there is reason. you choose to ignore that reason though because you don't agree with it which is un-scientific and irresponsible.
there is nothing scientific about your conclusion. "it's different in an intangible way that i cannot put my finger on, so it could be bad in an equally intangible fashion, so let's assume it's bad."

>>970402
>Why did you ignore the second part of my post?
sorry, i guess i was too distracted with the other anon.

you're right that the foster system is pretty shit. i can easily believe that homo couples on average will give better results than foster homes but i don't have any statistics to decide one way or another. the wiki site for fostering says stuff like
>In one study in the United Kingdom "foster children were 7–8 times, and children in residential care 6 times more likely to be assessed by a pediatrician for abuse than a child in the general population".
and
>A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington State found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.
which makes me think why the foster system is still used instead of having state funded orphanages that have to meet certain standards, are either located near a school or incorporate a school within the building.

>>970409
he wasn't even all that confused. he even admits that he identified as bisexual the entire time, even though "all his friends" (which i'm sure were also all those horrible gay activists oh my god!!!!) were INSISTING he was gay.

jesus, why anyone would use this article as proof of anything is beyond me. the LGBT support group "descended" upon him? he fell into the "gay underworld" where "terrible things happened to him" that he won't describe? this is the dude who we are assuming is being totally honest about his experience?

>>970409
>there is plenty of evidence out there that these kids have largely grown up just fine.
there is evidence for both, that's the problem.
>one example
he's not he only one.
>He's a married father, with a good education and job for crying out loud, how badly could his childhood really have been?
he managed to over-come his problems, let's not think less of the problems simply because he managed to over-come them after spending years doing some pretty seedy stuff by the sounds of it, he didn't go into detail.

>>970429
i mean listen to this fucking guy:
>"It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste. It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout."

http://joemygod.dlogspot.com/2013/06/homoquotable-robert-oscar-lopez.html

do you not notice that the dude isn't slinging this shit at infertile heterosexual couples who use surrogates or use their "political/financial clout" to adopt babies from Nigeria?

>>970432
>he didn't go into detail.
Exactly. Sorry but that's not good enough to constitute any kind of evidence.

>there is evidence for both, that's the problem.
There is evidence for both when it comes to hetero adoption too. What now?

>>970426
This is the crux of it. Its better than foster care, so it has a net positive on the current system and many children benefit from it. Are all gay parents perfect? Of course not, neither are all parents in any other demographic. There are ALWAYS uncertainties in this respect. This is why we have social workers that assess potential adoptive parents and monitor them after the adoption. This is also why we have social workers who intervene when straight parents are shit. You think orphanages are the answer? Are you fucking mental?

>>970432
>he's not he only one.
"he said teasingly, his hand pressed upon the list of names and sources to keep anyone from becoming too knowing"
>let's not think less of the problems simply because he managed to over-come them after spending years doing some pretty seedy stuff by the sounds of it
Except looking up more of this dude, I find this

>In my late twenties, I finally lost my virginity to the woman who would bear me a child and become my wife. So bingo, I was suddenly "bisexual."

So if he lost his virginity only after this "seedy period in the gay underworld"... what the hell was he doing during those years?

>>970446
He kissed a boy and he liked it?

No but I do think the couple with the kid who became transgender at 8 had some role to do with it. Although I guess that's progressive these days, right?

>>970413
>you are claiming that it is "absolute rubbish" to say that the sexual orientation of the parents has the same ramifications as their taste in ice cream. you are making a claim. back. it. up.
i backed it up by pointing out later in the post that biology influences psychology. kids hearing their dad play daft punk on occasion will also have an influence though.
>your one singular example
i'm not trying to prove one thing or another, i've said this before. he is also not the only one. his situation proves that things 'can' go wrong not how often they go wrong etc.
>i would have a dozen positive instances of children being raised by gay couples to meet it with. Rob McElhenney being a more famous example.
feel free to put together an image or a copy-pasta detailing known examples. i'd be interested in reading the details.
>nothing in his article suggests his "maladies" were any more from being raised by a gay couple than general or chronic social awkwardness.
this is a fair point, except that he claims he had seen doctors and that he has no assburgers or autism etc.
>and then pointed to an absolutely laughable example in this article.
that example and the 248 other examples referred to in that article. which is enough to demonstrate why it's reasonable to have reservations.
>there is nothing scientific about your conclusion.
i'm not drawing a conclusion anon. i am pointing out the opposite, that you can't draw a conclusion due to lack of evidence.
>"it's different in an intangible way
that's how influence works, that's why it's not a simple issue. the influence parents have on their kids can sometimes be easily pointed out and thrice as often not.

>>970453
I'm curious, are you still actually against gay adoption at this point?

If so, why?

>>970439
>Exactly. Sorry but that's not good enough to constitute any kind of evidence.
did you even read his article? he didn't detail the years he spent in seedy homo-orgies or some such. he did detail some of the negative affects growing up in his situation had. don't deflect.
>There is evidence for both when it comes to hetero adoption too. What now?
difference is hetero is the norm. it's how the species works. gays wanting adoption rights is the new thing, meaning its' up to gays to somehow demonstrate they are at least equally capable as single mothers or average hetero couples.
>Its better than foster care
you haven't demonstrated this.
>You think orphanages are the answer? Are you fucking mental?
a well run orphanage can be like a boarding school if the funding is there. it's just idle talk, i don't know if this is the right or only answer.
>>970446
the source is in the article.
>I find this
where? he says this
"It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man."

>>970471
>the source is in the article
If you're talking about the Regnerus study, it's been shat on by the AMA, the ASA and the APA.
>where?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_soul-crushing_scorched-earth_battle_for_gay_marriage.html

>>970471
>meaning its' up to gays to somehow demonstrate they are at least equally capable as single mothers or average hetero couples.
That is not the way this shit works. When you are talking about restricting a person's access to something the majority has, it is not up to the person who is being restricted to prove they're "worthy", it is up to the person doing the restricting to show good reason for why they shouldn't be allowed.

>>970471
>a well run orphanage can be like a boarding school
I went to a good boarding school. It was tolerable only because I knew it wasn't my home.

>difference is hetero is the norm. it's how the species works. gays wanting adoption rights is the new thing, meaning its' up to gays to somehow demonstrate they are at least equally capable as single mothers or average hetero couples.
>you haven't demonstrated this [that gay adoption is better than fostering]
There are plenty of studies that do show that gay parenting is fine. Like I said before, it isn't actually a new thing. You've said its a great uncertainty, but it really isn't. You're the one bringing this argument to a gay board, go do some actual research instead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

I did a quick google for you. Its not a study, but its an article about a study, and gives you the basics.

>>970471
>1 opinion piece
>evidence

well I don't expect /pol/ tards to understand statistics and evidence.

btw, the vast majority of people on this site were raised in traditional hetero families.
So then by your logic hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to have children.

>>970460
>are you still actually against gay adoption at this point?
yes
>If so, why?
lack of statistics. i don't want to take a stab in the dark with this because 'think of the children!' more or less and the psychological impact it might have.
>>970477
>If you're talking about the Regnerus study, it's been shat on by the AMA, the ASA and the APA.
ok, i'll have a look and see what they say.
read your link. let's go back to your question.
>So if he lost his virginity only after this "seedy period in the gay underworld"... what the hell was he doing during those years?
the 3 options seem to be
1 - he's lying
2 - he's talking about virginity with a woman and not anal sex/blowjobs.
3 - he bore witness but never partook
choose one i guess.

>>970483
>When you are talking about restricting a person's access to something the majority has, it is not up to the person who is being restricted to prove they're "worthy", it is up to the person doing the restricting to show good reason for why they shouldn't be allowed.
gay couples aren't entitled to kids, to be handed out willy-nilly by the local fostering center. they start off restricted automatically because they are precious so in this situation it is the reverse, if you want one, you need to prove you are worthy. so to speak.
>>970493
>I went to a good boarding school.
me too, i missed my mother but the school itself was perfectly adequate even as an outcast. looking back the years i spent there were the best in my life as well as strangely the worst because i made some of my biggest life mistakes at that age.
>There are plenty of studies that do show that gay parenting is fine.
and yet no one here seems capable of citing any such studies.
>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html
>130
>four to eight
that's not quite useless as a study but they're trying. 8 is far too early to determine anything.

>>970502
>lack of statistics
there are plenty of statistics.
And there was never a valid reason to presume anything would go wrong to begin with.

>>970502
>ok, i'll have a look and see what they say.
In short, all the people he interviewed were raised in traditional heterosexual family.
He asked them if one of their parents had a gay relationship while they were growing up and if they answered yes he'd put them in the "homosexual father/mother category.
But they were still raised in a traditional straight family.
Plus the "homo parent" category included divorced and adopted.
He removed those from the category of "heterosexual family".
So he basically studied stable traditional families against disfunctional traditional families.
If anything it shows you shouldn't try to force homsexuals to be closeted and marry a partner of the opposite gender to keep up appearences.

>>970515
>if you want one, you need to prove you are worthy. so to speak.
not at all.

You aren't asking about people proving they are worthy during the process to be accepted for an adoption.
You are talking about excluding them from even trying to prove it.

On the basis of nothing.

>>970502
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract
>Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1218%26context%3Ddjglp&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm331ION6V5i_Oyb-OpkQuKR_r2jXw&oi=scholarr&ei=YKDqUa_NI4zUPIeogbgO&ved=0CDAQgAMoADAA
>I conclude that there is no factual basis for claims that the adoption of children by lesbian and gay parents is harmful to children. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe, based on research findings, that children of lesbian and gay parents develop as successfully as do
children of heterosexual parents.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=4&article=1002&context=jacob_grunbaum&type=additional
>Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
Talks about how many kids there are adopted by gay parents and fostered by gay people and the economic cost of removing those parents and carers from the systems if legislated against.

GOOGLE IS HARD WORK

>>970494
>well I don't expect /pol/ tards to understand statistics and evidence.
you don't seem to either. or at least you're confused as to which is which and used for what.
an opinion piece from someone with a relevant background 'is' evidence.
you can use it to demonstrate a possibility, you can't use it as a basis for policy, this is where statistics come in. in statistics an opinion piece is anecdotal evidence or an anomaly and bares little consequence because there is a large reserve of data on which to draw a conclusion from.

problem is, there is no such large body of data and evidence. you claim otherwise thinking small studies are enough statistically.

>>970533
No it's not.
An opinion piece is an opinion piece.
A single case is not a relevant statistics.
A single case doesn't prove anything.

A single case where the person telling the facts is personally involved and biased even less so because of the bias of the person which doesn't let them look at things objectively.

>you can use it to demonstrate a possibility
my family was a traditional heterosexual family, my mom was a housewife and my dad worked .
Now I'm trans jobless and a failure.

this is possibility.
We shouldn't let straight couples have children until they can prove they are worthy.

>>970516
>there are plenty of statistics.
which you have no access to or even read it seems because you seem incapable of sourcing them.
>He asked them if one of their parents had a gay relationship while they were growing up and if they answered yes he'd put them in the "homosexual father/mother category.
"Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting."
so, if bi's can't count as evidence in favour of homo couples then your plan is what?

anyway, thanks for the summary but your word isn't enough so i'll try and look up the relevant papers.

What's all this about role models. . .? If you are interacting with society properly then there are role models anywhere you look. Growing up, my role models were fucking sailor moon and Goku. I didn't idolize my parents at all, I was just dependent on them.

Just don't see how a permanent and constant male or female role model really makes any difference.

>>970522
>On the basis of nothing.
on the basis that homosexuality is a negative influence. which you can't prove or disprove yet because the study samples that have been carried out are small.
>>970526
thanks
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract
this looks promising "but more studies should be done."
>http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1218%26context%3Ddjglp&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm331ION6V5i_Oyb-OpkQuKR_r2jXw&oi=scholarr&ei=YKDqUa_NI4zUPIeogbgO&ved=0CDAQgAMoADAA
well, this is just a terrible example
"the social science literature contains no published studies examining the development
of children adopted by openly lesbian or gay adults." her words. she makes an argument in favour of homo couples and uses 2 kids to illustrate her comment but there is no statistics here.
>http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=4&article=1002&context=jacob_grunbaum&type=additional
useful link, thanks.

>>970608
>on the basis that homosexuality is a negative influence.
Which is an assumption without basis.
As expected you have nothing to base your assumptions on. It's all an emotional reaction.
sage because we are running in circles.

>>970553
>An opinion piece is an opinion piece.
which can be evidence depending on who wrote it and on what subject, in a body of evidence.
>A single case is not a relevant statistics.
it's not a 'statistics' at all but it is relevant because the writer speaks from experience. it's one data point which can be used to build up a body of statistics.
>A single case doesn't prove anything.
true
>We shouldn't let straight couples have children until they can prove they are worthy.
difference is hetero families are the norm, it's how the species survives, they are a foundation stone of every civilisation. homo couples are not so you don't get the same lee-way since you are not necessary.

sounds pretty harsh but that's the bottom line.

>>970614
it does have basis. it has a deduction behind it supported by some evidence but which doesn't prove one thing over another.

biology influences psychology. hetero parents are how the specie works, messing with this may have bad side-effects. examples of bad side-effects exist. therefore it's reasonable to want proper statistics.
>we are running in circles.
indeed

>>965620 (OP)
holy crap this is the single most assbleeding piece of self-pitying bullshit i´ve ever read. it makes me wish legal maturity wasnt given by biological age but by some kind of psychological retard test.

>>970668
you'd most likely fail it then so careful what you wish for

>>966346
>your thought is that all social cues, norms, rules and un-written laws you know from birth.

Of course not, but you should be learning them from more people than just your parents and immediate family.

File: 1374354229453.jpg-(63 KB, 750x450, 996172_610601838960831_70(...).jpg)

63 KB JPG

>>970654

> Says "hetro parents" are how the species works.
> Doesn't understand how evolution works.

There is no purpose to life in general. The only reason animals(ie humans) is not because is where babies come from but because it send pleasant chemicals in the brain.

Humans have only been around for 100,000 year or so. Knowing what a heterosexual/homosexual is just a few thousand years old. Yet homosexuality has been around for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Your assumptions are underground, unscientific and emotionally based. The fact that humans even raise their children at all is something semi-unique to our mammalian species.

>>971987

There is no purpose to life in general. The only reason animals(ie humans) is not because it is where babies come from but because it sends pleasant chemicals in the brain. **

File: 1374354963548.jpg-(21 KB, 378x258, raisedbywolves.jpg)

21 KB JPG

>>965651
>I think we decided a while back that lesbians should under no circumstances be allowed to raise children.

Yes. The official legbutt parenting tier is:

Straight Couple> Gay Dads> Single Dad> State Orphanage> Single Mother> Raised by Wolves> Lesbian Mothers.

>>971987
> but because it send pleasant chemicals in the brain.
you mean sex. most animals don't experience such. there is a genetic imperative that drives us to re-produce, for humans it happens to be a hetero system.
>Knowing what a heterosexual/homosexual is just a few thousand years old. Yet homosexuality has been around for MILLIONS OF YEARS.
you need to take a rain-check. hetero relations are now our species before it even was this particular species propagated. the fact that mistakes (homo's) have happened through out history means nothing. also, your claim that homosexuality has existed for millions of years is let me quote you
>underground, unscientific and emotionally based
since there is literally 0 proof.
>The fact that humans even raise their children at all is something semi-unique to our mammalian species.
not it's not. among mammals it's common.

So the argument is that children should not be raised by gay families, but rather by heterosexuals in state homes?

>>971987
>niel degrasse tyson
>facebook filename

just leave

File: 1374356606600.gif-(997 KB, 300x169, tumblr_inline_moajxq5cS21(...).gif)

997 KB GIF

>>972102
>for humans it happens to be a hetero system.
The physical attraction reactions in the brain of a gay woman for a woman is the same as the reactions for a man for a woman. The same for a man for a man than is a woman for a man. That attraction won't produce offspring, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's not like being homosexual makes you sterile either. If anything an entirely gay, civilized population wouldn't stop procreation, it would just stop unplanned procreation.
>your claim that homosexuality has existed for millions of years is underground, unscientific and emotionally based since there is literally 0 proof.
You have no proof that it's not, either. Every animal with a social structure has been shown to have gay sex. And even if Homosexuality is a new thing, so what? Gay people still have the urge to form family bonds, even if it simply means raising the unwanted children from Heterosexual relations. That makes it seems like Homosexuality is a natural evolutionary defense against overpopulation.

>>965620 (OP)
>i will accept gay parenting the moment a big enough statistical research ( the one usually linked to 4chan has extremely small numbers, like 50 couples) show that mental illness, grades in school, social problems, homosexuality rates in children raised by gay couples are comparable with the ones of hetero couples selected with the same criteria.
There has been. This is the only reputable study done on this subject.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

>>972152
>tumblrnigger

>>972152
>but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
why is this relevant? we're not talking about whether it's ok to love whoever.
>If anything an entirely gay, civilized population wouldn't stop procreation, it would just stop unplanned procreation.
that's an interesting thought anyhow, there's a book called peace and war by holden or something where humanity turns entirely gay precisely for this reason. can't say i'm a fan.
>You have no proof that it's not, either.
i guess it's good i'm not trying to claim any such thing then eh?
>Every animal with a social structure has been shown to have gay sex.
no not every, since every species hasn't been tested for such. it is a common mistake among mammals it seem though. male sheep screwing male sheep.
>Gay people still have the urge to form family bonds, even if it simply means raising the unwanted children from Heterosexual relations.
you may have the urge but you don't have the means to make your own which is why there's issue and why there's reason to look into the effects of such.
>That makes it seems like Homosexuality is a natural evolutionary defense against overpopulation.
that's a theory. i'm not aware of any studies showing the gay/straight ratio increasing in the gays favour with an increase in population density and level of squalor however so this is it seems to me a pipe-dream of yours.

>>972172
looks interesting. ty for link

>>972205
>that's a theory. i'm not aware of any studies showing the gay/straight ratio increasing in the gays favour with an increase in population density

The more sons you have, the more likely the younger ones are to be gay. So, yeah, we get more gay people when we get more children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051890

Not responding the rest of it because everything has been said and you're insane but I thought I'd throw that out there.

>>972205
>why is this relevant? we're not talking about whether it's ok to love whoever.
Then... what are we talking about?
Peace and War by holden or something where humanity turns entirely gay precisely for this reason. can't say i'm a fan.
Well, I don't think an all-gay civilization is something to aspire to. It seems to be just naturally occurring in 10% of populations. But I just mention it because one of the popular criticisms of gay relationships is that it would "end the human race".
>i guess it's good i'm not trying to claim any such thing then eh?
Sure, but the existence of gay relationships in animals, suggests it's existed a long time.
>you may have the urge but you don't have the means to make your own which is why there's issue and why there's reason to look into the effects of such.
Agreed, but only if you also think established, below average quality straight parents should have their right to being parents permanently revoked.
>that's a theory. i'm not aware of any studies showing the gay/straight ratio increasing in the gays favour with an increase in population density and level of squalor however so this is it seems to me a pipe-dream of yours.
It's as relevant as any other theory about evolution. Gay people reproduce less often than straight people, therefor they contribute less to overpopulation. Natural population control. Whether or not it's effective is irrelevant, as there are tons of evolutionary mechanics that have been circumvented by civilization. Though it's just as reputable that civilization itself is an aspect of evolution.

>>972266
>The more children you have, the higher the chances you'll have a gay child
Derp. They needed to have a study for that?

>>972266
>So, yeah, we get more gay people when we get more children.
you are making assumptions, your study shows that gay males have a higher incidence of male older siblings. you saying this is population control is a theory only. it could also be a mechanism for limiting competition among family for example.
>>972295
>Then... what are we talking about?
well, i was expressing my doubts and trying to explain why i don't support gay adoptions.
>suggests it's existed a long time.
it doesn't suggest it existed a long time. it only shows that it exists currently. it seems far more likely though that this isn't anything new and did in fact exist for ages in the past because it's hard to think of a reason for why homosexuals would suddenly appear now.
>but only if you also think established, below average quality straight parents should have their right to being parents permanently revoked.
i don't agree because an individuals right to reproduce if they are capable trumps any morality issue. this is purely about adoption which is not reproduction. the technology will soon be here to allow both sexes to reproduce without needing to adopt at which point this issue will thankfully be moot and done with.
>Whether or not it's effective is irrelevant, as there are tons of evolutionary mechanics that have been circumvented by civilization.
this is true but it also leaves us without an actual answer meaning neither side can really say they are more likely right as to whether it's population control.
>>972439
well, i don't know about the leggbutt community but homosexuality as a population control mechanism never struck me as the reason for it's prevalence since i've never seen it work so i don't think it's as obvious as you think.

File: 1374362905479.jpg-(154 KB, 543x604, 1369701126741.jpg)

154 KB JPG

>>972102

> you mean sex. most animals don't experience such. there is a genetic imperative that drives us to re-produce, for humans it happens to be a hetero system.

Incorrect the vast majority of animals feel pleasure reproducing. The only reason humans reproduce is because it FEELS good. Knowing that it makes babies...still brand new.

>you need to take a rain-check. hetero relations are now our species before it even was this particular species propagated. the fact that mistakes (homo's) have happened through out history means nothing. also, your claim that homosexuality has existed for millions of years is let me quote you

Yes, by mistake hetro realtions are our species. The vast majority of life asexually reproduces. Once again though...even that is a mistake. Evolution once again...has no purpose. Something the religious right has a hard time grasping.

> since there is literally 0 proof.

Once again this is like having a creationist screaming "WHERE IS THE PROOF! " We show you the proof and you ignore it. Please take your pseudoscience some where else.

>not it's not. among mammals it's common.

Yes...among MAMMALS.

>>972137

> doesn't like neil degrass tyson even though he's awesome.

The only way you could have known it was facebook is if you are a facebook user your self. So maybe you should make your self leave?

>>972603
>you are making assumptions, your study shows that gay males have a higher incidence of male older siblings. you saying this is population control is a theory only. it could also be a mechanism for limiting competition among family for example.
>limiting competition among family for example.
Limiting the competition to breed? It's literally the same thing.
>i was expressing my doubts and trying to explain why i don't support gay adoptions.
You complained that there was little to support my stance, yet there is also little to support your stance....so... why?
>i don't agree because an individuals right to reproduce if they are capable trumps any morality issue.
Why? The children gay people want to adopt have already been abandoned by the people who decided to reproduce.
>this is purely about adoption which is not reproduction. the technology will soon be here to allow both sexes to reproduce without needing to adopt at which point this issue will thankfully be moot and done with.
This is the craziest statement in the thread. If everyone will just be able to make their own babies, and you think everyone should just do that, WHAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE UNADOPTED CHILDREN? So you just want unadopted children to be forever unadopted?
>homosexuality as a population control mechanism never struck me as the reason for it's prevalence since i've never seen it work so i don't think it's as obvious as you think.
So... is there a better explanation for its prevalence?

>>972727
>Incorrect the vast majority of animals feel pleasure reproducing.
well, i guess i'll have to look into that. far as i knew one of the things that made dolphins stand out for example was that they took pleasure in sex like humans.
>The vast majority of life asexually reproduces.
well sure since bacteria out-number all other life god knows how much to one.
>Evolution once again...has no purpose.
true
>We show you the proof and you ignore it.
you didn't? i'm not sure you're following every conversation as well as you should. in that particular post the conversation was about the theory that gays have been around for millions of years, there is no proof of this. it only seems more plausible that homosexuality isn't anything new.
>Yes...among MAMMALS.
am i supposed to care about bacteria and cute little birdies or something? they are irrelevant.
>>972784
>Limiting the competition to breed? It's literally the same thing.
it's not because males used to spread their seed wide and often. meaning the population kept increasing but without the gay mans dna leaving his brother to produce the future off-spring.
>You complained that there was little to support my stance, yet there is also little to support your stance....so... why?
i wasn't meaning to complain about anything. i'm aware that there's a lack of proof for both sides, i was arguing against the anons that seemed to think their side did in fact have solid logic and proof on their side.
>Why?
it's my personal morality coming into play, i am libertarian? not sure of the american words for it. i treasure personal liberty above most things. this means that even if a person may be a bad parent i will not stop them from reproducing if they can.
>The children gay people want to adopt have already been abandoned
yes, which is why if there can be a decent sized statistical study showing homo parents don't have adverse effects then i wouldn't have a problem with homo couples adopting. (cont)

>>972784
(cont)
>So you just want unadopted children to be forever unadopted?
no. it's a loop-hole of sorts. personal liberty means once the technology is available for gays to reproduce they shan't be denied it. meaning the statistics will become available, proving one thing or another, without needing to decide whether to allow a huge human experiment by allowing a number of kids to be adopted and tracked and studied. which falls under human experimentation which i consider immoral.
>So... is there a better explanation for its prevalence?
you know, one of the theories for why there is so much junk in our DNA is that the junk inadvertently acts like a sort of virus that propagated by attaching itself to the dna of a reproducing organism. i don't know why exactly homosexuality occurs but i do know that in nature a lot of weird shit happens and that thinking there's a logical reason like 'population control' doesn't always cut it. for all i know homosexuality is a persistent genetic illness that doesn't do enough harm to die out. or maybe it's something beneficial like population control. i don't know.

>>973043
>which falls under human experimentation which i consider immoral.
i need to elaborate because i was careless.

involuntary human experiments

still shows me anyone crazy enough to want to take care of a parasite aka children are crazy enough to fuck them over in every possible way. two moms or two dads ext its still one in a few that actuality like there parent and don't throw them in an old folks home l8ter in life

>>972978
>>973043
Just a few notes.
1.) Information Documentation is not Human Experimentation.
2.) There have been studies. (Dispite what the guy pictured in OP claims, one guy who hates his parents is not a proper study.)
See:
>>970526
>but i do know that in nature a lot of weird shit happens
They're called mutations. They're the key component of evolution. The reason you're not a fish anymore can be credited to them.
Genetic Illnesses literally kill people. Being gay doesn't kill anyone.

>>973128
>1.)
i know. allowing gay adoptions on a wide-scale would be though
>2.)
small studies with numbers that are not remotely statistically significant.
>They're called mutations.
oh there's that sure. but i mean weird shit in general like, some species of wasps laying eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs within a caterpillar tier weird.
>Genetic Illnesses literally kill people.
not always, sickle cell for example provides some protection from malaria which is one of the reasons why it spreads despite the disadvantages.
>Being gay doesn't kill anyone.
true true

>>973168
i like how you have been fed study after study using wide, varying figures and each time you are all "thank you this is very interesting!!!!!!" and then whenever anyone asks you if it changes your mind at all you're all like "lol nope still too small to counteract this dipshit's anecdote"

>>973182
>then whenever anyone asks you if it changes your mind at all you're all like "lol nope
feel free to provide a study with numbers that matter and you'll convince me.
>still too small to counteract this dipshit's anecdote
you're not counter-acting his testimony. you can't counter-act it because his thoughts are just one data point among many ideally. the problem is that the collective amount of data is insufficient.

>>973204
do we have any reason to assume you would accept any study or data without dismissing it out of turn on account of it being "too small"

>>973234
why wouldn't you? do i appear to you like a trolling shit-poster here for kicks and not actually caring one way or another?
the problem is that currently that doesn't seem to be any such study.

>>973168
>allowing gay adoptions on a wide-scale would be though
>small studies with numbers that are not remotely statistically significant.
Those studies combined had over 15,000 subjects. That's about 98% of all children raised by gay couples in America. You need more? Do you need a study that includes more than 100% of gay couples to actually exist?
It would be the same as straight adoptions. You just have to be married which one-by-one the states are approving.
>oh there's that sure. but i mean weird shit in general like, some species of wasps laying eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs within a caterpillar tier weird.
Those are mutations caused by the nuclear radiation after the testing and deployment of the A-bomb. I assure you. Gay people existed before that.
>not always, sickle cell for example provides some protection from malaria which is one of the reasons why it spreads despite the disadvantages.
Sickle cell also kills people.

>>973260
>why wouldn't you? do i appear to you like a trolling shit-poster here for kicks and not actually caring one way or another?
no, you come across as someone who has already made up his mind about the issue and nothing will change it. you have been given other anecdotal stories about good homosexual parents, you have been given refutations by respected organizations of the one study that this article quotes, and you have been given multiple statistical studies that show there is no inherent difference between gay or straight parents.

you do not, however, care about any of this. at this point, it is apparent you have an underlying issue that prevents you from being impartial, though it is unlikely you will admit it because then it would mean admitting an unscientific perspective.

File: 1374369001482.jpg-(25 KB, 283x420, 1276564571645.jpg)

25 KB JPG

>>973344
>Those studies combined had over 15,000 subjects.
that sure sounds a lot. i'll have to look up the details around the statistical validity of that number.
also a question in case you happen to know. did the kids have any input in who fostered them?
>Those are mutations caused by the nuclear radiation after the testing and deployment of the A-bomb. I assure you.
>mfw

>Gay people existed before that.
for sure man, alexander was born just about before the a-bomb and he was a raging conquering fag commando!
>Sickle cell also kills people.
only if you get both genes that alter your red blood cells, 25% or so. otherwise one gene is enough to let you live.
>>973371
>you have been given other anecdotal stories about good homosexual parents
which means you may be right and that over-all homo parents may be just as good.
>you have been given refutations by respected organizations of the one study that this article quotes
that didn't happen actually, i'll need to look that up sometime.
>and you have been given multiple statistical studies that show there is no inherent difference between gay or straight parents.
which have small study samples, which matters. you need to stop seeing me as an enemy that needs defeating and more like a sounding board. i'm telling you where your weaknesses and gaps are basically.
>you do not, however, care about any of this.
but i do, otherwise i wouldn't care if gays adopted or not
>it is apparent you have an underlying issue that prevents you from being impartial
i am interested in your explanation for this 'apparent' issue you seem to be seeing.
>though it is unlikely you will admit it because then it would mean admitting an unscientific perspective.
you say this and yet you claim your small studies are sufficient proof. i'm not the one being unscientific here.

>>973429
>that didn't happen actually
yes, it did: >>970477 but if you mean someone serving you the link on a silver platter, here: http://www.back2stonewall.com/2012/06/am.html
>which have small study samples, which matters.
except your standard for what a sufficient sample is seems grow larger as you are given more studies
>you need to stop seeing me as an enemy that needs defeating
as you have responded, you have not shown any interest in rationality or reason, just the constant repetition of "but it's different" and "sample size still not large enough." you are not a sounding board, you are someone with an end goal in mind.
>but i do, otherwise i wouldn't care if gays adopted or not
i mean the evidence you have been given does not make any difference to you. your opinion will not be changed no matter what you see.
>i am interested in your explanation for this 'apparent' issue you seem to be seeing.
who knows? there are plenty of people who identify as gay but have problems with gay marriage and gay adoption because they have internalized what their parents and their pastor have taught them. there are plenty of gay people who speak out against gay marriage and gay adoption because they want to be seen as separate from the "gay community". if you're asking me to tell you what your exact hang up is, i can't. that doesn't mean you don't obviously have something going on.
>you say this and yet you claim your small studies are sufficient proof. i'm not the one being unscientific here.
your definition of "small study" keeps broadening and you hold steadfast to one position in spite of having nothing on your side but an easily refuted single account from a guy who, frankly, seems that he has a lot more at stake than simply "telling his story." there is more evidence towards one than the other, and you are giving the other the benefit of the doubt.

>>973646
>http://www.back2stonewall.com/2012/06/am.html
you umm, have you looked at that link? they don't refute the study.
>except your standard for what a sufficient sample is seems grow larger as you are given more studies
not true
>you have not shown any interest in rationality or reason
do tell, how do you come to this conclusion.
>you are not a sounding board, you are someone with an end goal in mind.
i thought you said i already made up my mind? doesn't that mean i am already at my end goal?
>i mean the evidence you have been given does not make any difference to you. your opinion will not be changed no matter what you see.
your evidence is insufficient. you are waving a teeny little flag around in celebration claiming victory when it is but the first step on demonstrating your view to be correct. you are jumping the gun and having a huff that someone is pointing out that your efforts so far are not enough. you need to stop that.
>if you're asking me to tell you what your exact hang up is, i can't. that doesn't mean you don't obviously have something going on.
so...what exactly are you basing your 'obviously something going on' idea on?
>your definition of "small study" keeps broadening
not true. there hasn't been a progression to begin with, you need to take a step back and think about what you're saying.
>easily refuted single account
this again, you don't learn do you. you can't refute an opinion piece. his thoughts are just one data point among many.
>seems that he has a lot more at stake than simply "telling his story."
what do you base this on. don't resort to baseless slander, you are not doing yourself any favours.
>there is more evidence towards one than the other
this is true, afaik
>and you are giving the other the benefit of the doubt.
i am not. i am pointing out that one being more likely with the current evidence doesn't = significant enough evidence to base policy on.

>>973429
>you say this and yet you claim your small studies are sufficient proof. i'm not the one being unscientific here.
You keep saying they are small studies, but they were quite extensive.

And then I remembered, what the fuck does your opinion matter? And then I went outside.

>>973865
well it is summer. it's a good time to go outside.
>but they were quite extensive.
obviously not, they'd be bigger if they were.

>>973824
You have been given a ton of studies. None of them satisfied you. What would satisfy you? How big would the study have to be?

File: 1374373027120.jpg-(9 KB, 250x215, 1355803167640.jpg)

9 KB JPG

>>973429

> Has NO statistical data saying that gay parents are worse then heterosexual ones.
> Denies the other studies that prove his opinion wrong as not having enough data.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the claim that gays don't make as good parents. This is why gay marriage and gay adoption is winning in land slides.

How about you can post again when you show us ONE study that even suggests other wise.

>>973906
big enough for the scientific community to say it's enough.

this hasn't happened. for example this study
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract
is rather telling since it's a meta-study and it states that more studies are still required.
>>973944
>Denies the other studies that prove his opinion wrong as not having enough data.
you have a weak grasp of what proof means in the scientific community. you are not looking for proof with these studies, you are building a body of evidence that will make your view practically as iron clad as the theory of gravity.
>The burden of proof is on you.
actually it isn't since homo couples are the deviation from the norm here not the other way around.
>How about you can post again when you show us ONE study that even suggests other wise.
well that's easy, seeing how op's article refers one one such study. which happens to be controversial to boot. what do you know.

>>973944
Fuck it. He's dismissing all scientific evidence you provide him. He's just lonely and wants to troll.

>>973906

There is no such thing. Its like arguing with a creationists. No matter how much evidence we have they will never accept it. Not only that but they also never present their own data.

The easiest thing to do is simply let them get pummeled in court cases. Believe it or not he's in a small vocal minority.

File: 1374374092756.jpg-(31 KB, 500x250, 1370281786413.jpg)

31 KB JPG

>>973976

>you have a weak grasp of what proof means in the scientific community. you are not looking for proof with these studies, you are building a body of evidence that will make your view practically as iron clad as the theory of gravity.

I have a strong grasp of scientific proof. I don't hold any 'beliefs'. I only care about peer reviewed research, statics and data. I ONLY care of the proof....and since you have ZERO, no one is going to listen to you. In science we have this little thing where you have to show proof.
Of which gay parents have been studied and shown that it causes NO variance.

> actually it isn't since homo couples are the deviation from the norm here not the other way around.

You have no proof it's a deviation on any other level then being left handed. What you call "normal" you mean to say "replicates". 'Normal' is a man made term. Once again the burden of proof is on you to prove science wrong.

> >How about you can post again when you show us ONE study that even suggests other wise.

Did you just call an opinion piece a scientific study? Okay, your definition of scientific proof just became a lot clearer...you mean "bullshit".


I don't believe in an afterlife, spirits, ghosts, souls, God(s), Astrology, Faith healing, devils or any other nonsense.

>>974086
>In science we have this little thing where you have to show proof.
let me quote you back to you to demonstrate why you are being nonsensical.
>I only care about peer reviewed research, statics and data.
such data in favour of gay adoptions exists, that is not proof however which is why you insisting that
>I have a strong grasp of scientific proof.
is simply not true.
>You have no proof it's a deviation on any other level then being left handed.
trololol. oh you're a funny guy. yes gay couples are completely normal despite this flying in the face of how the species propagates itself. it's this kind of delusional talk that makes me think you're more woman than man.
>Once again the burden of proof is on you to prove science wrong.
wrong on what exactly? do you think a few studies actually 'prove' something?
>Did you just call an opinion piece a scientific study?
next time read the study instead of just reading the headline, you'll know what i'm talking about then.
>I don't believe in an afterlife, spirits, ghosts, souls, God(s), Astrology, Faith healing, devils or any other nonsense.
ok, thanks for sharing i guess but i don't really care about your religious beliefs or non-thereof and you've already demonstrated that you lack scientific grasp so you trying to underline that claim is redundant i'm afraid.

>>974128
>next time read the study instead of just reading the headline
i apologise. i meant
"next time read the opinion piece instead of just reading the headline"

>>974128
>it's this kind of delusional talk that makes me think you're more woman than man.
true colors are revealed. He's nothing more than a sexist pig.

>>974150
feel free to argue without emotional outbursts and illogical, irrelevant deflections and you wouldn't be looked down on.

and yes i am well aware that such weak-mindedness isn't exclusive to females.

File: 1374376584056.jpg-(64 KB, 501x650, 552197_361837870574796_13(...).jpg)

64 KB JPG

>>974128
>let me quote you back to you to demonstrate why you are being nonsensical.

Lets hope you can try this time without ad hominem attacks, logical fallacy’s and straw man arguments. Maybe you'll even be able to make a coherent point this time.

> such data in favour of gay adoptions exists, that is not proof however which is why you insisting that

The only data so far that’s been accepted by science has been in favor of gay parents. The 'study' the 'English' proffsor links to has been debunked by every accredited scientist.

www,tinyurl,com /kjwgsvu <-- ta da. Your wonderful 'scientist'.

>is simply not true.

We'll see who gets their Ph.D in the next four years and let that be the judge.

>trololol. oh you're a funny guy. yes gay couples are completely normal despite this flying in the face of how the species propagates itself. it's this kind of delusional talk that makes me think you're more woman than man.

It's kind of this kind of blatant lack of biological knowledge that makes me wonder if you've even gotten your G.E.D yet.

>wrong on what exactly? do you think a few studies actually 'prove' something?

I don't think their needed to be studies to begin with. Gay people have been raising and will continue to raise children for as long as the human species exists. These studies where conducted out of new social pressure to see if your random fears had any merit...and they didn't as every one has come up in positive light towards a parents sexuality (gay or straight) making them more or less effective as parents. The only thing people like you do...is make it harder for families with gay parents.

>next time read the study instead of just reading the headline, you'll know what i'm talking about then.

I read both the quack doctors findings (been debunked by all his peers.) and the English professor. So once again....you have no data, no proof and basically only insults and guessing games.

>>973976
>you have a weak grasp of what proof means in the scientific community. you are not looking for proof with these studies, you are building a body of evidence that will make your view practically as iron clad as the theory of gravity.
YOU FUCKING MORON.

THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY.

IT'S SIMPLY AN OBSERVABLE EVENT WITH NO CAUSATION.

HUMAN MEN AND HUMAN WOMEN ARE LITERALLY THE TWO MOST SIMILAR LIVING THINGS ON THE PLANET.

STRAIGHT PARENTS AREN'T EVEN GOOD PARENTS. THEY'RE AVERAGE.

A SINGLE ANECDOTAL EDITORIAL IS NOT A STUDY. FUCK YOU TOO.

FUCK BOTH OF YOU.

>>973976
>is rather telling since it's a meta-study and it states that more studies are still required.
You mean like the two other, more extensive studies I provided you?

>>974336
>Lets hope you can try this time without ad hominem attacks
it wasn't ad hominem, you need to look up what that means.
>Maybe you'll even be able to make a coherent point this time.
my point is that there is no proof showing gay couples are fine as parents because that is not how policy based on statistics works. in statistics you can have data suggesting every thing possible but it's the majority data that has been scrutinised that counts. a few studies in favour of gay adoptions is a good start, it's not enough and it's not proof. if you actually had a grasp of science you would have realised this and spared me this pointless semantics argument.
>The only data so far that’s been accepted by science has been in favor of gay parents.
if you say so, point remains that it isn't enough. the very scientists who make these studies say so so don't think this is just me coming up with random barriers to over-come.
>We'll see who gets their Ph.D in the next four years and let that be the judge.
spare me, wave your future ego medal over at ribbit or somewhere else where your bling bling matters more than your argument.
>It's kind of this kind of blatant lack of biological knowledge
feel free to elaborate, can't argue with a comment that's devoid of any substance.
>I don't think their needed to be studies to begin with.
there didn't until gay's sought adoption rights. seeking such requires studies because kids in adoption or foster homes are the states responsibility and to hand them out without having some idea who you're handing them out to would be irresponsible
>Gay people have been raising and will continue to raise children for as long as the human species exists.
true enough, after-all what else did one help do as a gay cave-man without kids of your own.
>you have no data, no proof and basically only insults and guessing games.
there is data, there can't be proof as i've explained and i don't play guessing games, you just keep making assumptions

>>974373
that was sloppy phrasing i suppose. theory of gravitation. theory of relativity. they are all relate you see.
>A SINGLE ANECDOTAL EDITORIAL IS NOT A STUDY
never said it was. well, except my mistake once.
>>974378
no, not like them. the second one that was linked assuming you're talking about this post >>970526
wasn't a study, it was actually a fancy opinion piece as well and the third study linked didn't address the impact of gay parent-hood, they were talking about a different angle. mostly the cost of taking kids out of gay foster homes.

>>965620 (OP)

Why are you getting mad at this?

Father and mother figures are healthy for children. Learn how to accommodate this basic human need before you end up with an epidemic of psychologically distressed children of gay parents.

>>966012
>implying politics is limited to electoral politics