Of course it hasn't. But it sure shows that genetics plays an important factor.
Tell me, even if the correlation were 100%, would you still believe the study? Or would you argue that there's no way to do such a study because of so many variables? If so, then there's no scientific data you'd actually accept, and you're leading people on a wild goose chase.
What does the gender of a person have to do with which gender they prefer?
fify, and I don't know either.
By not having a father figure.
Becuase it's important in this study. if a pair of paternal twins are of opposite sex, it can skew the sample as to where identical twins are very likely to be of same gender.
I can't illustrate anymore how important that is. I give up. You're a dumb moron, your first comments on this thread were idiotic and third rate.
so you hate the single female parent too
I can't illustrate just how irrelevant the psuedo-scientific arguments you are trying to make really are for the sake of gay couple adoption.
So you would not allow single parents to raise children as well?
I'm willing to bet that any neutral observer who saw both our posts would have to conclude that I provide more cogent analysis, while you provide more degenerate ramblings.
I like your takes LnGrrR but no freaken way. Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.
Jack, would you REALLY call yourself a neutral observer?
So you also hate the single female parent.
not much of a surprise.
Has gtown presented an argument based on anything other than his own prejudices?
No?
Just checking.
Man pissing on a random tree-stump, might be an opinion. You never know.
Like i said a million times, i don't want the govt getting involved in the adoption process, i leave that up to individuals.
ON the chance i'd give up a kid i helped into this world, i wouldn't give him to a single parent, i'd rather he go to a father/mother household.
My argument was that govt shouldn't ban sexual adoption, but should let the private individual or agencies decide.
You weren't checking, just trolling.
Last edited by Ignignokt; 07-14-2010 at 09:45 AM.
that's funny, all the people on this thread who claim to be using logic in this thread including LNGRRR have been doing this all day. That is, trying to play psychologist and assign my opposition as hate, fear, loathe, or being concerned over gay people.
Instead of arguing the issue you chose to try to play an online quack.
ughhh... pound sand ??
yOu've been reduced to betting, and iffing, but haven't been able to discuss anything with me. After stating that i don't want govt interference on gay adoption you still argue with me as if i do. You've used a flawed study to indicate nothing. Paternal twins where there are of pairs of opposite sex being used to study with same gender pair identical twins is not a good measure on anything. If anything, an honest observer, not "neutral", would know that.
Anyway about that neutral observer, that's a crock. Like this topic is not polarizing.
You assigned your opposition as loathing gay people without any help from me or anyone else from what I can tell:
I don't really care about your personal feelings on the matter. I care about mine.
You claim that two men adopting kids is nasty. If that's true, I'm trying to figure out why that is.
So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up" and "a kid shouldn't see a man playing a feminine role in a relationship because it will mess him/her up".
Those arguments are beyond lame on their own, but I'm willing to listen and am open to changing my mind if you are able to provide any social studies regarding how kids can get mentally messed up by being subjected to these supposed nasty situations.
I'm betting you don't have any real studies you can refer to other than the ones that come blowing out of your asshole.
I didn't say that. Quit putting words into my mouth.
A critique of why many gay parenting studies and literature is fataly flawed, by the bible thumping, hating Princeton University.
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...s/15_02_06.pdf
13Difficulty Finding Representative
Samples
Perhaps the most important such challenge is
that researchers have no complete listing of
gay and lesbian parents from which to draw
representative samples (probability samples,
as researchers call them). To find study participants,
they have often had to rely on
word-of-mouth referrals, advertisements,
and other recruiting tools that may produce
samples not at all like the full population of
gay and lesbian parents. All but one of the
studies we examined employed samples composed
of either totally or predominantly
white participants. Almost all the participants
were middle- to upper-middle-class, urban,
well educated, and “out.” Most were lesbians,
not gay men. Participants were often clustered
in a single place. It may be that most
same-sex parents are white, relatively affluent
lesbians, or it may be merely that these
parents are the easiest for researchers to find
and recruit, or both may be partly true. No
one knows. Absent probability samples, generalizing
findings is impossible.
Small Sample Sizes
Gay- and lesbian-headed families can be difficult
to locate, and funding for this research
has been sparse.12 Those factors and others
have forced researchers to deal with the challenge
of small samples. Most studies describing
the development of children raised in gay
or lesbian homes report findings on fewer
than twenty-five children, and most comparative
studies compare fewer than thirty children
in each of the groups studied. Other
things being equal, the smaller the number of
subjects in the groups studied, the harder it is
to detect differences between those groups.
compared
with whom? Should a single lesbian
mother be compared with a single heterosexual
mother? If so, divorced or never married?
Should a two-mother family be compared
with a two-biological-parent family, a motherfather
family headed by one biological parent
and one stepparent, or a single-parent family?
It all depends on what the researcher
wants to know. Identifying appropriate comparison
groups has proved vexing, and no
consistent or wholly convincing approach has
emerged. Many studies mix family forms in
both their sexual and heterosexual
groups, blurring the meaning of the comparison
being made. Some studies do not use
comparison groups at all and simply describe
children or adults in same-sex households.
Some, in fact, have argued that comparing
gay and straight families, no matter how
closely matched the groups, is inappropriate
inasmuch as it assumes a “heterosexual
norm” against which same-sex paren
so how does the kid know that one adopted dad gave the other dad oral sex?
if it wasn't because the kid walked in and these two lines of thought had nothing to do with each other, then for future reference, make two different posts so that the average reader doesn't come to such a conclusion.
I didn't ask for studies as to how gay parenting has been proven to be ok.
I asked for a study that proves gay parenting is nasty and/or how it can mentally mess up the kid.
I never walked in on my parents to find out that they had sexual relationships. I logically concluded, that they were married, and i'm their biological son. I think kids of gay parents will have to draw conclusions on how they arrived there, and to what status their parents relationship is.
WHat i provided was neither. All it said was that the current studies today are really flawed because you don't find list samples of gay couples who are parents, if you're a researcher you go by word of mouth, that lesbians are heavily sampled compared to gay couples, and that hetero relationships are more dynamic, and have their own differences.
You could learn to read.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
