Reply With Quote
Really?
At what age did you conclude that your mom gave your dad oral pleasure?
by dynamic, i mean different. You have married and non married, poor, step families and biologicaly linked families. To compare all of them to affluent white lesbian couples is scientifically unsound.
Really?
At what age did you conclude that your mom gave your dad oral pleasure?
I absolutely know how to read.
You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."
That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.
Now I'm asking you to back up that claim.
You could learn to back up claims or just simply say, "IMO, based on no real research."
LOL@ Blake spewing, again. He never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty. You really do need to learn how to read.
, i can't conclude what specifics they do, only that they procreate and have sex. Gay men on the other hand are known to practice sodomy. And one would be hard pressed to find gay and lesbian couples who don't practice oral. lol!
lol @ blake.
You want me to find a scientific study to back up my oppinion on the nastiness of gay sex and adoption?
I never claimed any research would back up or destroy an oppinion on the act of gay sex or adoption
lol blake!
I've maintained that there are no studies out there that are scientific concerning gay adoption because of the small sample size.
Go hump a sand castle, gtown.
You can pretend it's an adoption agency with liberal ideas about placement.
No, I was checking to see if you had any backbone.You weren't checking, just trolling.
You don't.
Who never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty? me or gtown?
You need to learn to be clearer when using pronouns.
Of course, either way, neither of us never denied saying that, so I don't know what your point is.
You need to learn how to read and write better so that the average reader can figure out what your point is.
you know this how?
lol @ gtown lol.
I figure as most do that you thinking gays being nasty was an opinion. I wanted to see if you were going to make an attempt to find some kind of research on it being nasty.
I would rather see what research you have that shows that having gay parents will keep a kid from being a healthy, productive member of society.
I bet you can't find any real research on it.
lol you! lol.
The original argument was not about gay adoption, but gay marriage.
Frankly, if you think gay adoption/marriage/sex/whatever is "nasty" or "icky" or "produces cooties", I don't care as long if you're not for laws preventing that sort of thing.
The study shows that the closer the genetic link, the more likely that gay/straight tendencies correlate. Gender doesn't matter. Genetics do. I'm sure they tested all sorts of twins with all sorts of genders, and the key point is that the closer the gene relation, the closer the gay correlation.
Why doesn't gender matter? How do you find those two (genetics/gender) not intrinsically linked? Care to prove analytically that "gender doesn't matter"?
Dumbass, he was refering to you putting words into his mouth when you said "So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up". He never said that.
He tried to provide you with information on gay parenting and/or how it can mentally mess up a kid, at your request. He tells you to learn how to read because you don't like the answers he is giving you. Instead of thanking him for trying to answer some questions you cry out like the little you are:
"I absolutely know how to read.
You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."
That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.
This is when I chimed in. I was clearly pointing out to you he hasn't changed his tune that two men adopting kids is nasty. He never said those were the words you were putting in his mouth. I felt compelled to laugh at you.
You also said I that I hate single female parents. I don't.
For the purposes of that study, gender did not matter. If I tell you that the closer the genetic link, the more the correlation, does it amtter whether they were different genders, or whether they were shorter or taller, or whether they were smarter or dumber?
If you want to argue that gender played a significant role, and that they misinterpreted the results, then make that argument. But if you're just saying, "Well, maybe they didn't control for this or that" then I'm not accepting it without some proof. I'm assuming that the study found that gender difference played a negligible/non-important link when it came to twin gender preference correlation.
But way to take one or two sentences out of the multiple posts to try and argue around that.
right, I addressed that issue.
You need to learn how to read.
He provided a link as to why research on the positives of gay parenting is/can be flawed.He tried to provide you with information on gay parenting and/or how it can mentally mess up a kid, at your request. He tells you to learn how to read because you don't like the answers he is giving you. Instead of thanking him for trying to answer some questions you cry out like the little you are:
I don't thank my waitress for bringing me the wrong order either.
I never alluded to him possibly having changed his tune. I responded to a particular post."I absolutely know how to read.
You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."
That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.
This is when I chimed in. I was clearly pointing out to you he hasn't changed his tune that two men adopting kids is nasty. He never said those were the words you were putting in his mouth. I felt compelled to laugh at you.
You absolutely suck at reading and writing and I am feeling compelled to laugh at you right now.
I think I will.
Then Ignignokt didn't really hit it out of the park for you.You also said I that I hate single female parents. I don't.
I think i will laugh at you again.
Right, I re-addressed that with you because you are so confused about what you put in people mouths or should I say whose mouth. Perhaps this why you take offense to his gay parenting opinions. Are you planning on adopting?right, I addressed that issue.
You need to learn how to read.
He provided a link as to why research on the positives of gay parenting is/can be flawed.
I don't thank my waitress for bringing me the wrong order either.
I never alluded to him possibly having changed his tune. I responded to a particular post.
You absolutely suck at reading and writing and I am feeling compelled to laugh at you right now.
I think I will.
Then Ignignokt didn't really hit it out of the park for you.
I think i will laugh at you again.
He told you there is a small sample of gay parenting. I am willing to listen. Provide some links on studies that proves gays can be good parents and/or will not mess up kids mentally. Instead of acting like one.
You absolutly suck at reading and writing. You certainly don't comprehend what you can read.
Just because Ignignokt owned your whimpy bald ass on this subject doesn't mean I hate single female parents. Does it?
This falling down laughing thing is really cool, Blake. I think I will laugh at you some more.
Last edited by jack sommerset; 07-14-2010 at 05:14 PM.
Why not?
Um, all those things matter. A study of such kind that didn't account for any of these things is pretty useless, in fact. It's actually laughable you'd imply they don't; or that many, many other factors aren't involved, especially in the socioeconomic spectrum.If I tell you that the closer the genetic link, the more the correlation, does it amtter whether they were different genders, or whether they were shorter or taller, or whether they were smarter or dumber?
I'll go further and say the researchers are demonstrating a bias towards demonstrating biological origins of sexuality.
They didn't misinterpret the results. The results simply don't mean anything. They're incomplete. They lack a degree of empiricism. They aren't very useful for determining anything. And even then, the results (52%) are rather inconclusive, as gtown said.If you want to argue that gender played a significant role, and that they misinterpreted the results, then make that argument.
Just because he's a re most of the time doesn't change that fact.
Burden of proof is on you, not I. Why can't you answer these questions yourself?But if you're just saying, "Well, maybe they didn't control for this or that" then I'm not accepting it without some proof.
There's absolutely every reason to assume the opposite. Males and females are different (this should be obvious), especially in terms of biochemistry. A large part of the reason men develop male sex organs is secretion of testosterone while in the womb, for example. Critical thinkers realize these factors exists and don't make any of your assumptions when it comes to gender.I'm assuming that the study found that gender difference played a negligible/non-important link when it came to twin gender preference correlation.
Because that "simple assumption" you make leads me to believe you don't know much about gender differences, past women having vaginas and dudes having s.But way to take one or two sentences out of the multiple posts to try and argue around that.
It goes, way, way, way deeper than that.
Not only that, I've made it clear that environment determines sexuality in most people; at least, that's where the vast majority of current research has pointed, for quite some time now.
Anyone arguing otherwise faces a steep uphill climb that flies in the face of today's most current research.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-14-2010 at 05:16 PM.
BTW, I don't think you even know what the article is about.
On reading, I realized it occurred with ONLY gay men. And in the very first paragraph, they immediately concede that other factors are important. This implies they in fact, did not control for any other factors;
an incomplete, inconsequential study.
Another key point you've either ignored or simply missed:
The study does not even reveal exactly how they selected their sample! They concede the twin studies may not even represent twins accurately whatsoever, but still somehow make estimates with their incomplete analysis.
Their ad to attract participants from gay interest publications implies quite a bit, as well. These types of surveys never have much meaning, since they rely on only a select portion of the target population that probably goes undefined by the researchers. You may be wondering how scientists could ever find a truly random sample of gay men without inherent environmental issues in the search; the truth is, they usually (if not always) can't.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-14-2010 at 06:05 PM.
His post was poorly worded. I was not the only one that took it as an assumption that sooner or later a kid would walk in on the gay parents having oral sex.Right, I re-addressed that with you because you are so confused about what you put in people mouths or should I say whose mouth. Perhaps this why you take offense to his gay parenting opinions. Are you planning on adopting?
Sidenote, he still has yet to explain how he knows that gays that practice sodomy also regularly practice oral sex.
Although his poorly worded post has nothing to do with my takes on gay marriage, I take little to no offense to his opinion. I think it's sad people are this ignorant.
I've seen the studies from the small samples. I am also willing to listen. Yippee.He told you there is a small sample of gay parenting. I am willing to listen.
Proving that gays can be good parents is not equal to proving that gay parents can mess kids up mentally. Learn to read.Provide some links on studies that proves gays can be good parents and/or will not mess up kids mentally. Instead of acting like one.
You agreeing with him means it does.Just because Ignignokt owned your whimpy bald ass on this subject doesn't mean I hate single female parents. Does it?
Cool. I will stand over you, point and laugh at you while you are on the ground.This falling down laughing thing is really cool, Blake. I think I will laugh at you some more.
HAHAHA IdiotHis post was poorly worded. I was not the only one that took it as an assumption that sooner or later a kid would walk in on the gay parents having oral sex.
Sidenote, he still has yet to explain how he knows that gays that practice sodomy also regularly practice oral sex.
Although his poorly worded post has nothing to do with my takes on gay marriage, I take little to no offense to his opinion. I think it's sad people are this ignorant.
I've seen the studies from the small samples. I am also willing to listen. Yippee.
Proving that gays can be good parents is not equal to proving that gay parents can mess kids up mentally. Learn to read.
You agreeing with him means it does.
Cool. I will stand over you, point and laugh at you while you are on the ground.
You determined that I hate all single white female parents because I said to LnGrrr that Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.
Son, listen. Your conclusion makes zero sense. I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's because you are stupid. All the other stupid bull you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a ing tool.
That's the problem; no study in this day and age can probably accurately predict the gay population. I don't think that means we should just abandon trying to take polls/research these factors though.
The 52% is significant, because it's much higher than the percentages found between other types of twins.
You're bringing up gender is important, and I'm not saying it isn't for the purposes of sexuality, but for the genetics=closer correlation aspect. Why would there be such a higher prevalence of correlation in the study? If it is related to environment (nurture instead of nature), did the scientists just happen to pick sets of genetic twins that were raised in the right environment to become gay while picking fraternal twins that weren't raised in the right environment?
Tell me, if you were to run a study determining whether genetics correlated to gay/straight tendencies, how would you go about controlling for all related factors? I don't see how it's a possibility.
white?
more reading comprehension fail.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
After I asked 'what about lesbian parents' Ignigkot stated they need a male father figure (or something similar).Son, listen. Your conclusion makes zero sense. I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's because you are stupid. All the other stupid bull you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a ing tool.
I said "so you also hate the single mother"........which would mean the idea of the single mother to some......to which there has been no response.
You are slobbering all over his out of the park balls, therefore it's quite simple son........if you are riding that hard on his e- , then you must also hate the idea of the single mother.
Again, should be a simple concept to understand, even for a ing dumb like you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
