Full rights for the LGBT community.

alastair

NuMarvel wrote: »

And in the meantime, you'll scour the Internet looking for anything that debunks the research you haven't read, and then spend your time defending it, even though you haven't a clue if it's accurate or not. Just as well you have an open mind, huh :pac:



That's not what I'm referring to at all, and anyone who understands the adoption process would know that. Joint adoption is when an adopted child is placed in the custody of the applying couple, and not the sole custody of one person. It's not limited to step-family adoptions, which is what you're talking about.

So, to summarise. This whole charade of finding evidence you'll find acceptable is moot. Gay people can already adopt, and the law will soon change to allow civil partners to adopt jointly.

If you have a reason why the law shouldn't be changed, we're all ears. But it's up to YOU to prove that the status quo, i.e. that gay couples can't adopt jointly, but can adopt as single people, is more beneficial to children.

This is the standard conspiracy theory strategy. For more of the same just check out his record on anything Israel or 'zionist' related. No reasoning with bias.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Peer-review is not the flawless, bias-free, hallowed construct you make it out to be, You don't have to look any further that climategate to understand this. This is a whole different discussion though.

What is important here is are the criticisms and conclusions present in the study valid or not.

Peer review is the best process we have.People write detailed critiques of the process but they still send the critiques through the process. A person choosing not to use the process is in all likelihood the most suspect research around. If the research was so significant and it truly was groundbreaking,they'd send it through the process. So I'm not acknowledging bs studies that nobody feels the need to review. All the dodgy institutes avoid the process because they are full of bollocks.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes it's better to accept that some commentators just don't get it... take this as an example:

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Flinda-harvey-young-gay-people-should-stay-closeted-until-they-can-become-straight%2F&ei=eL1TU7jrMsqM7AaPq4H4AQ&usg=AFQjCNGnpvVUPTJBoD4YTKgXJ8vLHQLY3g&bvm=bv.65058239,d.ZGU

Linda looks as if she's trying to smile but failing hard.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Peer-review is not the flawless, bias-free, hallowed construct you make it out to be, You don't have to look any further that climategate to understand this. This is a whole different discussion though..

Dear o dear.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is important here is are the criticisms and conclusions present in the study valid or not.

....the mere fact they aren't peer reviewed shows their invalidity.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All else being equal and assuming a greater number of would-be adopted parents than the number of orphans needing homes then potentially, yes, the normative family unit may provide a better environment for the orphan to thrive in every time.

That's not an answer to my question. My question was whether you believe that there will always exist, as an axiomatic fact, a more suitable hetero adoptive couple for a given adoptive child than there exists a gay couple.

I thought that was simple English, but I see I need to explain further, so I will.

I'm positing the idea that, for a given adoptive child, there may exist a gay couple that are better suited to adopt that child than any of the candidate hetero couples. What I'm asking you is: if such a situation can exist, would you agree with that gay couple having the right to adopt the child? If such a situation can't exist, can you explain how it's logically impossible?

It's a binary question, and I'd appreciate you not evading it by rephrasing it this time.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Peer-review is not the flawless, bias-free, hallowed construct you make it out to be, You don't have to look any further that climategate to understand this.

Do you have a more reliable process than peer review to evaluate a study? If yes, please adduce it. If not, your argument is void.

I look forward to you rephrasing my question in order to evade it again.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you have actually read it then???

Are the criticisms valid in your opinion?

OK, BB, I will slowly, clearly and carefully point out why the criticisms levelled against the existing body of social science research in the document you linked are not valid. I'm going to break this down into several categories to make it easier to follow the flaws in "No Basis"


1. Mistakes of fact

The first problem with "No Basis" is that the authors in several places make several basic reporting mistakes displaying some remarkably sloppy fact-checking. This, by the way, is the importance of citing peer-reviewed sources so that we don't have to go through such basic mistakes.

a) Brewaeys et al (1997)

This is a surprising and notable inclusion in the list of studies since it has been mentioned on multiple occasions, even by gay marriage opponents such as Steven Nock as "a well defined analysis that attempted to study entire populations rather than samples of them". It is as rigorous as any study in the field of social science gets.
The first mistake that the authors make is that they report the sample size in Table 6 as 72. However, as you can see from the actual paper:

Donor insemination: child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families

the sample size is 98. Furthermore, Lerner and Nagai criticise Brewaeys for its use of ANOVA as its test metric. However, you can see from reading the paper that multiple statistical tests (including Student's t-test) are used. Furthermore, something that Lerner and Nagai fail to point out is that the study controls for demographic differences in the comparison groups and also corrects for multiple comparisons.


b) Harris and Turner (1986)

Once again the sample size reported by Lerner and Nagai is 27, whereas the actual sample size in the paper is 39.

Gay and Lesbian Parents


c) Chan, Raboy and Patterson (1998)



Psychosocial Adjustment among Children Conceived via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers

What do you know, another sample size reporting error, this time claiming 77 instead of the 80 used in the paper. Furthermore Lerner and Nagai claim that:

"Chan et al use t-tests extensively. The t-test is a statistical proce- dure that compares the means of two groups to see whether the dif- ference between the two means are likely to be due to chance or statistically significant. "

Well, yes but the authors fail to point out that such t-tests are also supported by multiple regression analysis tests.

Furthermore, Lerner and Nagai, make a bold and rather confusing claim by stating:

"The primary problem in using the Bonferroni correction in these studies, however, is that it introduces a bias in favor of the investiga- tors’ own hypotheses."

Such a claim makes it plain that Lerner and Nagai are not researchers in any serious scientific field. For those who don't know the Bonferroni correction is a correction for multiple comparisons. Basically, if you compare groups using multiple characteristics, the odds that one group is better than the other by chance alone increases significantly. While the Bonferroni correction is non-conservative when used to affirm the null hypothesis, it is still in line with best practice in the field.


2. Methodological issues

The first issue with the approach taken by Lerner and Nagai is the failure to detail the effect of the flaws they describe. The overall impression that Lerner and Nagai attempt to give to the reader is that the 49 studies included in their document are flawed to the point that the conclusions of these studies are either wrong or unsupported by their results. However, this simply isn't the case.

Take this paper for example (cited by Lerner and Nagai).

Lesbian mothers who conceived after donor insemination: a follow-up study

This paper does contain a flaw, but is not flawed in the way Lerner and Nagai describe. The issue with the Flaks paper is that while the conclusions hold for the dataset collected, the conclusions are based on a sample size which is too small to be generalised to the entire population. This is a small but important distinction which the authors fail to clarify.


Secondly, there is the illusion of control. For example, when examining the studies for sample size, Lerner and Nagai point out that they excluded one study with good sample size (Riddle et al.) because it lacked a heterosexual control group. However, papers such as Brewaeys and Chan cited above show that a control group may not always be a prerequisite for a solid paper. To explain this further, let's look at babies. Babies at birth are frequently tested using an Apgar score. These scores measure a baby in several categories against well-established norms, birth weight, for example, to determine whether the baby is healthy or not. Similarly, since many of these studies study child outcomes, they can be measured against established psychological norms using standard tests as outlined in the paper by Chan et al.


3. Relevance

This is the single most important reason why Lerner and Nagai's criticisms are not valid. It's not that they were never valid it's that they're not valid anymore. There are several reasons for this.


3a - Best practice.

The primary resource used by Lerner and Nagai in levelling their criticisms is a set of guidelines established by psychometrician Jacob Cohen in 1988. However, in 1999, two years before No Basis, the American Psychological Association issued updated guidelines for conducting psychology research:

Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations

These guidelines form the basis of best practice in the field and serve to undermine the criticisms of some of the papers in Lerner and Nagai's work, in particular Brewaeys et al.


3b - Meta analyses

One of the most powerful modern tools in scientific research is a meta-analysis. Unlike a review article where the conclusions and results are cursorily examined, meta-analyses essentially combines the different datasets and reanalyses them as a single dataset to see if the results hold for the larger set. This meta-analysis:

A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents

(published in 2008) uses 19 eligible studies including 16 cited in the Lerner and Nagai document. It finds that:

"In sum, children raised by same-sex and heterosexual parents were found to not differ significantly in terms of their cognitive development, gender role behavior, gender identity, psychological adjustment, or sexual prefer- ences. For the outcome that was significantly different between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents, the finding was in favor of same-sex parents."


3c - Rigorous studies

At this point I should point out that as I have previously stated, this work is badly out-of-date. Although published in 2001, the most recent paper examined dates from 1998. 16 years is a very long time in any field of research but particularly in one with as much political valence and human rights implications as this one.
In any event, since 1998, there have been several studies which not only satisfy the established best practice in the field but the crazy extremes documented by Lerner and Nagai. Examples include:

Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents

Children With Lesbian Parents: A Community Study


3d - Large-scale studies

One of the valid criticisms of social science research prior to the millennium was the lack of suitable large-scale studies so that the results which were established on a small-scale basis would hold on a national level. However since 2000, there have been several such studies.

The first of these is the Wainwright study cited above which studied 12,105 adolescents taken from the National Study of Adolescent Health, a government funded program.

Then of course there are these studies, you know the ones I keep telling you about BB:

• Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007
• Rosenfeld, M.J., (2010), Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school Demography, 47(3), 755-775
• Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. (2012). ACHESS–The Australian study of child health in same-sex families: background research, design and methodology. BMC public health, 12(1), 646.
• Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. The Australian Study of Child Health In Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) - Interim report

All of these studies represent the gold standard of research in this area. They are large scale and nationally representative. And yet they confirm the same findings documented in the other research previously.


Just one or two more points since you mentioned them.
While the author's actions are inconsistent with their claims, this does not in itself, make their claims false as you point out. However, it does cast doubt on their overall message. Lerner and Nagai's point is that these studies are flawed to the point that they are worthless to draw conclusions from. However, as I previously said, this is niche data and you don't get to be picky with it. Similarly, as has been noted in the literature funding in this area is pretty scarce. Sometimes, it is not feasible to run a gold-standard trial. Sometimes a good-enough trial with caveats, will have to suffice. This seems clear to Lerner and Nagai since they use such subpar methods in their own work. However, their failure to mention this aspect of modern research is a black mark against their intellectual honesty.
Similarly, while the lack of peer review doesn't automatically make their claims false, peer review serves to weed out errors and methodological problems in weak papers, such as the ones I have detailed above. Perhaps if they had peer reviewed their work they might have had a stronger albeit much smaller argument.
Finally, the organisation which commissioned this study is important to note for two reasons. Firstly, out of all the different types of criticisms that Lerner and Nagai claim about the papers they study, the one that you decided to explicitly mention in your post was that the studies were "agenda-driven". So if being "agenda-driven" is a valid criticism against the social science research it is also a valid criticism of Lerner and Nagai's work. Secondly, bias is something that must be corrected for. This is why honest researchers provide conflict of interest statements on peer-reviewed papers to act as a caveat.


Lerner and Nagai's critisms are flawed and obsolete. However, even had they been valid at the time, we do not need to rely on studies of that type to support the hypothesis. At least not any more.


P.S. One last point. Even if Lerner and Nagai's criticisms were valid, so what? Let's say that all 49 of those studies are worthless. Fine. Firstly, there are over 165 studies cited in the APA document I linked to previously. And that's just for starters. You can't use the 49 studies to suddenly invalidate all the studies conducted. Secondly, even if we scrap the 49 studies, then we have 49 less studies showing no difference. We still don't have ANY solid peer-reviewed studies (like the ones I have cited in my posts) which DO show an advantage for heterosexual parents.


P.P.S. One final, final point. I promise. Your idea that the normative heterosexual family unit would be preferable is wrong. For two reasons. Firstly, there is no such thing as a normative family unit. There are many different types of family form in modern society. Historically, the nuclear family is a very rare family form. For a considerable period of our species history children were raised communally by women while the men hunted big game. Even after the development of civilisations, several societies were harem-type societies where the ruler would have many hundreds, if not thousands of wives (e.g. Atahualpa).
Secondly, as I have said before, even if we had NO research on actual outcomes of children in LGBT families, we already have a significant body of research which details what we should expect. We know that the factors which make good parents ARE NOT linked to either gender or sexual orientation. So the idea that heterosexual families should be better, even in theory, is wrong.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... ah, the homophobia card. To reiterate: We have an obligation to provide our single most vulnerable citizens (orphans) with the best possible homes and families. We have an obligation to these children to not impatiently jump on any hipster bandwagons and grasp the nettle but to exercise caution before placing them in alternative family structures until such a time as all doubt has been removed that the normative family structure isn't uniquely capable of providing these children with the best possible homes.

As there will never be a full meeting of the minds of ALL the human race on this (or any other) issue, It's apparent that there will NEVER be a removal of doubt that the "normative family structure" is the only family structure capable of providing children (regardless of their background) with the best possible homes.

There's an interesting take on normative families definitions here, as distinct from what is described as the traditional family.... It includes a single parent/single child family amongst it's listed definitions of normative families, something different from that given (and maybe understood) by Brown Bomber as the best normative family to place a child with. I have to admit that I didn't know 'til a few minutes ago what "normative" is defined as, so was in complete ignorance that "normative" does NOT mean what it might be taken to mean. It does NOT equate to "traditional" family numerically.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffamily.jrank.org%2Fpages%2F490%2FFamily-Definition-Normative-Definitions.html&ei=ZTVUU_zIMq2M7Abw2YHIBw&usg=AFQjCNHD4-_vLYsDSGIjivaAIYGiu9LgQA

Re the actual meaning of "normative" there's this: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNormative_ethics&ei=FzpUU4zqAs-u7Aak8IGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHtWmswg1lJ1_anwejTAXOdsGUEqg. Normative may not be suited to use alongside actual family make-ups, as apparently it's relative to the correctness in holding some points of view.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

As there will never be a full meeting of the minds of ALL the human race on this (or any other) issue, It's apparent that there will NEVER be a removal of doubt that the "normative family structure" is the only family structure capable of providing children (regardless of their background) with the best possible homes.

There's an interesting take on normative families definitions here, as distinct from what is described as the traditional family.... It includes a single parent/single child family amongst it's listed definitions of normative families, something different from that given (and maybe understood) by Brown Bomber as the best normative family to place a child with. I have to admit that I didn't know 'til a few minutes ago what "normative" is defined as, so was in complete ignorance that "normative" does NOT mean what it might be taken to mean. It does NOT equate to "traditional" family numerically.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffamily.jrank.org%2Fpages%2F490%2FFamily-Definition-Normative-Definitions.html&ei=ZTVUU_zIMq2M7Abw2YHIBw&usg=AFQjCNHD4-_vLYsDSGIjivaAIYGiu9LgQA

Re the actual meaning of "normative" there's this: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNormative_ethics&ei=FzpUU4zqAs-u7Aak8IGIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHtWmswg1lJ1_anwejTAXOdsGUEqg. Normative may not be suited to use alongside actual family make-ups, as apparently it's relative to the correctness in holding some points of view.

I'll just preface this by saying that I haven't been ignoring the previous posts, I've had other priorities. Oldernwiser, again my hat is off to you for the depth of your response. For clarity and to avoid a repeat of the previous confusion,, I have thanked your post for your efforts; not for the accuracy of your claims, which will need to be examined and this will also take time, I request your patience on this because I actually want to get to the bottom of this.

Aloysious,

My use of the term "normative" was essentially me being guilty of what I consider most here of doing - pandering to the thought police.

It was to avoid using "normal" or "regular" which though accurate conjures up associations with inferior, which was not my intention.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an answer to my question. My question was whether you believe that there will always exist, as an axiomatic fact, a more suitable hetero adoptive couple for a given adoptive child than there exists a gay couple.

I thought that was simple English, but I see I need to explain further, so I will.

I'm positing the idea that, for a given adoptive child, there may exist a gay couple that are better suited to adopt that child than any of the candidate hetero couples. What I'm asking you is: if such a situation can exist, would you agree with that gay couple having the right to adopt the child? If such a situation can't exist, can you explain how it's logically impossible?

It's a binary question, and I'd appreciate you not evading it by rephrasing it this time.

First thing to get out of the way: NOBODY, gay or otherwise has any "Right" to adopt any child.

Second, by no reasonable standard can "axiomatic" be considered "plain English".

Third, I have already answered your question. POTENTIALLY, an orphan may develop better with a male (Ying) and female (Yang) nurturers and role-models than two Yings or two Yangs. This is self-evident.

For the sake of the orphans of today and the future we need an actual defintive study -- (as I've described previously); not "this is as good as it gets" or "budget restrictions mean..." and so on. -- which conclusively proves that this "Potential" doesn't exist.

This/These definitive studies should guide us on whether gender, that is NOT sexual preferences has any baring on the adopted child, whether they show same sex parents as being inferior, superior or equal adoptive parents.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have a more reliable process than peer review to evaluate a study? If yes, please adduce it. If not, your argument is void.

In this context yes. Actually using our own brains, analysing the information objectively for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.. Not treating science as a religion and running as far a way as possible from heretical texts.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Third, I have already answered your question. POTENTIALLY, an orphan may develop better with a male (Ying) and female (Yang) nurturers and role-models than two Yings or two Yangs. This is self-evident.

Actually it's not. Read the reports.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In this context yes. Actually using our own brains, analysing the information objectively for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.. Not treating science as a religion and running as far a way as possible from heretical texts.

Drawing your own conclusions hadn't worked out too well for you. See above.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In this context yes. Actually using our own brains, analysing the information objectively for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.. Not treating science as a religion and running as far a way as possible from heretical texts.

You're having a laugh? You? Objective? You are completely unobjective with the emotive language you are constantly using.

aloyisious

On a matter that's close to ALL people regardless of their gender or "lifestyle", the freedom to walk freely/unmolested in Dublin. My Brother passed me on a warning he saw from an Garda Siochana to Gay Men walking on their own in the Dame St/Georges St area that there have been seven (7) attacks by a mob of Romanian Teenagers (16-17 years age group) there in the past two weeks. Three of the attacks were in Crampton Court near the Olympia. The last was on early Sunday Morning when the victim was left unconscious, That attack was interrupted by two undercover Gardai, who had to stay with the victim, enabling the attackers to flee. Two Romanian Teens were arrested in connection with one of the earlier attacks. The story my bro posted mentioned a senior source as the source for the Evening Herakl report. Watch your back and don't walk alone.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teenage-thugs-target-gay-and-drunk-men-in-alleys-30220912.html

To the Mods/Admins: If you think this message needs a thread of it's own, please give it one. I posted it here as I reckoned interested parties might become more aware of it, due to it's importance and relativity to LGBT folk.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You're having a laugh? You? Objective? You are completely unobjective with the emotive language you are constantly using.

You are wrongly conflating my empathy for orphans, something that is clearly lacking in my opinion amongst the so-called human-rights defenders here with objectivity.

It's a personal issue for me. My brown-skinned wife was adopted from South America into a white European family. We talk about it some times and she believes that whenever possible orphans should be placed with families that are ethnic matches with the adopted child. The asinine claims that she is a racist, who has been the victim of racism throughout her life from people who have absolutely no idea what it's like to grow up in a community where your family is clearly marked as "different", even to strangers made me laugh.

Two-dads Dave will have to deal with the same hardships in his life.

Are we expect the mod of LBGT to not have a dog in the fight here? Are you objective?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Actually it's not. Read the reports.

I don't recall you linking to a report, much less a report which conclusively proves anything.

alastair wrote: »

Drawing your own conclusions hadn't worked out too well for you. See above.

It's unclear from your ad-hom whether you agree or disagree with my statement,

In this context yes. Actually using our own brains, analysing the information objectively for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.. Not treating science as a religion and running as far a way as possible from heretical texts.

Could you clarify?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't recall you linking to a report, much less a report which conclusively proves anything.

That's because I didn't link to a report - I read the reports that were posted by others. And yes - the findings were conclusive. So your ad-hoc thesis, 'self-evident' and all as you claim it to be, is actually incorrect.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's unclear from your ad-hom whether you agree or disagree with my statement,



Could you clarify?

Didn't think it needed clarification, but no - based on your own, incorrect, conclusions derived from this supposed process, and the need to paint scientific process as 'religion', it all just comes across as hot air to obscure a bias you'd rather not admit to. So - put me in the 'disagree' camp.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

On a matter that's close to ALL people regardless of their gender or "lifestyle", the freedom to walk freely/unmolested in Dublin. My Brother passed me on a warning he saw from an Garda Siochana to Gay Men walking on their own in the Dame St/Georges St area that there have been seven (7) attacks by a mob of Romanian Teenagers (16-17 years age group) there in the past two weeks. Three of the attacks were in Crampton Court near the Olympia. The last was on early Sunday Morning when the victim was left unconscious, That attack was interrupted by two undercover Gardai, who had to stay with the victim, enabling the attackers to flee. Two Romanian Teens were arrested in connection with one of the earlier attacks. The story my bro posted mentioned a senior source as the source for the Evening Herakl report. Watch your back and don't walk alone.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teenage-thugs-target-gay-and-drunk-men-in-alleys-30220912.html

To the Mods/Admins: If you think this message needs a thread of it's own, please give it one. I posted it here as I reckoned interested parties might become more aware of it, due to it's importance and relativity to LGBT folk.

Making these comments poses something of a dilemma for me. You seem to me to be a really nice guy and this is something which you obviously feel passionately about but nobody else seems to have the backbone to say it. There is absolutely no evidence of hate crimes here.

They are muggers, who have targeted both gay and straight victims who use violence as a means of achieving their aims.

I'd speculate on the only relevance of sexuality being that the more feminine of gay men are generally perceived as being less capable of physically defending themselves and therefore making them more tempting targets of muggers.

This, I think, would also make their adopted children more vulnerable to criminals and predators.

Chapter Five: What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and ...

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/.../foundatione.cfm‎
An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd speculate on the only relevance of sexuality being that the more feminine of gay men are generally perceived as being less capable of physically defending themselves and therefore making them more tempting targets of muggers.

This, I think, would also make their adopted children more vulnerable to criminals and predators.

God help us. :rolleyes:
You've jumped the shark now.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

God help us. :rolleyes:
You've jumped the shark now.

Are seriously ignorant of the gay stereotype of the homosexual man as being physically weak?

The Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and Intimacy ...

books.google.ie/books?isbn=160623837X
Laurie A. Rudman, ‎Peter Glick - 2008 - ‎Psychology
In other words, gay men are stereotyped as physically effeminate (e.g., slight and physically weak), as interested in “feminine” roles and occupations

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are seriously ignorant of the gay stereotype of the homosexual man as being physically weak?

There's no physical strength criteria to adoption for heterosexual couples so why are you placing this criteria on homosexual couples?

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Making these comments poses something of a dilemma for me. You seem to me to be a really nice guy and this is something which you obviously feel passionately about but nobody else seems to have the backbone to say it. There is absolutely no evidence of hate crimes here.

They are muggers, who have targeted both gay and straight victims who use violence as a means of achieving their aims.

I'd speculate on the only relevance of sexuality being that the more feminine of gay men are generally perceived as being less capable of physically defending themselves and therefore making them more tempting targets of muggers.

This, I think, would also make their adopted children more vulnerable to criminals and predators.

Well actually there is evidence of hate crimes so you are not exactly correct there.

There isnt as much evidence as perhaps the North of Ireland but that is because PSNI record homophobic and transphobic hate crimes on there crime database and they do it properly. Here the Garda pulse system is extremely poor at recording homophobic hate crime and doesnt avknowledge transphobia.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=SftcU4_7Bs3W7Qa4nIEg&url=http://www.glen.ie/attachments/Johnny_Report.PDF&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFx2dS5XtQ7TebLXXx48K7ygk-dAg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=SftcU4_7Bs3W7Qa4nIEg&url=http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/gru_report_gaylesbian%255B1%255D.pdf&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGpiExmdpdNGsk91qV3FlrgZR5B3A



www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcdowell-to-open-centre-for-victims-of-gay-hate-crime-264414.html

www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/david-norris-reveals-hes-been-3123439

http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/lgbt.php

http://www.thejournal.ie/homophobia-ireland-1313875-Feb2014/

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/2-sligo-men-get-8-years-in-beating-of-gay-u-s-writer-2/


http://www.thejournal.ie/ive-had-enough-dublin-victim-speaks-out-after-homophobic-assault-868105-Apr2013/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=Rv5cU-XmCozH7AaXxIHIDg&url=http://www.nosp.ie/lgbt_lives_dec_2008.pdf&cd=14&ved=0CCoQFjADOAo&usg=AFQjCNECU0xKj9OboqoJE8pfe6_o_FoEhg

http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/tv-star-back-on-feet-after-attack-26695118.html


Again you are using emotive language; "orphans", "vulnerable" - yada yada yada - You're trying as hard as you can to appear reasonable and objective but the language you are using portrays a completely different story. Sorry but there is no way you are neutral or undecided or objective in this debate.

Even the bit just now about children being more at risk because of who their parents are and their parents characteristics shows you are not neutral, undecided or objective here.

Your propagandising language shows up your real agenda.

aloyisious

@BB: Going off topic now on LGBT rights in response to part of your response to my Safety Warning: On the basis of stereotyping people and defining them by such thoughts, or making decisions on their suitability as adoptive-parents, would one be right to think that people of pacifist (or faith) beliefs against involvement in the Military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators?

Edit: as you said, the muggers were attacking what they took to be weak victims, but I'd suggest that the weak state might be due as much to alcohol as to physical traits or appearances.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Well actually there is evidence of hate crimes so you are not exactly correct there.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying does not follow on at all from what I've said, which was that there was no evidence of any hate crime being committed in these street muggings. I don't think I've ever even heard of of a mugging motivated by hate.

For reasons best known to yourself you've rattled off a list of hate crimes which have no relevance,

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again you are using emotive language; "orphans", "vulnerable" - yada yada yada -

Your sensitivity towards the gay agenda and lack of senstivity towards the children involved in adoption is shocking to me and leaves little doubt to me which side your bread is buttered on.

1. What do we call an orphan if not an "orphan"?
2. How can you possibly have a problem with an orphan being describe as vulnerable? They are by definition vulnerable,
3. Tell me, who is more vulnerable and more deserving of the assistance of our state than an orphan?

_Redzer_

Ah there it is, "gay agenda".

Anyone who utters that moronic statement should be best ignored because there's just no talking to them rationally.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

..................

Your sensitivity towards the gay agenda and lack of senstivity towards the children involved in adoption is shocking to me and leaves little doubt to me which side your bread is buttered on.

....well certainly that there leaves little doubt as your culinary preferences.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

@BB: Going off topic now on LGBT rights in response to part of your response to my Safety Warning: On the basis of stereotyping people and defining them by such thoughts, or making decisions on their suitability as adoptive-parents, would one be right to think that people of pacifist (or faith) beliefs against involvement in the Military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators?

Anyone who from the outset who would declare their intentions to not protect their child from physical violence, including murder, but to stand by should not be considered as an adoptive parent.

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit: as you said, the muggers were attacking what they took to be weak victims, but I'd suggest that the weak state might be due as much to alcohol as to physical traits or appearances.

Absolutely, muggers play the odds, which is why the muggings are carried out in alley ways at night. They prey on the perceived weak and vulnerable. There are many factors that can give this impression of weakness and being drunk is certainly one of these factors.

Corkfeen

BB,you have literally posted actually propaganda on this site about same sex parenting. Posters have gone into elaborate detail on the existing research but the truth is,no proof is good enough for you. A meta analysis is one of the best research techniques around and they have been provided. The bigots have had every opportunity to have a legitimate peer reviewed study on same sex parenting but the truth is,the only reason why they can't show a negative effect is because there is none.

You haven't engaged in a proper debate,you have rejected tonnes of research and have provided nothing that proves contrary except for rather dodgy 'studies'. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you started to link to the work of those who claim various evil people were gay. :eek:

If there's a trend of people being mugged of a particularly ethnicity. The odds are there is somewhat of a racial motivation for targetting that group. The same applies for gay people.People have types that they're more willing to target,it's not rocket science. You seem really desperate to incorporate a 'gay agenda' into everything for the sake of feeling non pc or something like that.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....well certainly that there leaves little doubt as your culinary preferences.

Yeah, you are right...I'm Hitler's evil-twin for correctly viewing women and men as equal but different and having the rights of the child at the foremost of my concerns when it comes to adoption...

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, you are right...I'm Hitler's evil-twin for correctly viewing women and men as equal but different and having the rights of the child at the foremost of my concerns when it comes to adoption...

so all potential adoptive parents must be non-pacifists and submit to strength trials?

Brown Bomber

This is what I'd said, do you agree or disagree? Should a person's personal ideology come before a child's safety?

Anyone who from the outset who would declare their intentions to not protect their child from physical violence, including murder, but to stand by should not be considered as an adoptive parent.

jill_valentine

Adoptive parents must all be married, rich white straight Conan the Barbarians.

God, this gets better and better.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ah there it is, "gay agenda".

Anyone who utters that moronic statement should be best ignored because there's just no talking to them rationally.

So gay activism (by both straight and gay people) doesn't exist then ???

Corkfeen

jill_valentine wrote: »

Adoptive parents must all be married, rich white straight Conan the Barbarians.

God, this gets better and better.

I will smite!

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is what I'd said, do you agree or disagree? Should a person's personal ideology come before a child's safety?

Why would it? Theres no evidence that a child is at risk because of two gay parents.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is what I'd said, do you agree or disagree? Should a person's personal ideology come before a child's safety?

I reject the premise that pacifist parents are a danger to children. Or are you suggesting social services remove children from pacifist homes?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Why would it? Theres no evidence that a child is at risk because of two gay parents.

We were talking about pacifists actually. If you really can't get it I can explain with a hypothetical. Pacifists adopt a young boy. They walk into the child's bedroom to observe one of their uncles molesting the young boy. They don't use physical violence to get him to stop.

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So gay activism (by both straight and gay people) doesn't exist then ???

I've only ever heard "the gay agenda" used like it's describing some sort of plan to brainwash society and make everyone gay.
In my experience here, only the far right seem to use the term with a negative meaning.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I reject the premise that pacifist parents are a danger to children. Or are you suggesting social services remove children from pacifist homes?

I've been quite clear, so I'll repeat. Anyone who is not openly committed to defending a potential adopted child from violence, up to and including kidnap and murder by outsiders should not be considered as adoptive parents.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We were talking about pacifists actually. If you really can't get it I can explain with a hypothetical. Pacifists adopt a young boy. They walk into the child's bedroom to observe one of their uncles molesting the young boy. They don't use physical violence to get him to stop.

I consider myself a pacifist however this does not mean that I would let the above situation occur.

The most suitable candidates are the best adoptive parents. Same sex couples can be the best adoptive parents,it's really not very complex.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've been quite clear, so I'll repeat. Anyone who is not openly committed to defending a potential adopted child from violence, up to and including kidnap and murder by outsiders should not be considered as adoptive parents.

That doesn't rule out pacifists based on what you just said. Have you changed your mind regarding pacifists adopting?

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I've only ever heard "the gay agenda" used like it's describing some sort of plan to brainwash society and make everyone gay.
In my experience here, only the far right seem to use the term with a negative meaning.

I can't speak of what you've heard, and have nothing but disdain for the far right. If you wan't to know what I believe all you need do is ask. What you have described above is a "hidden agenda" not an "agenda". Since I used agenda and not hidden agenda there was no need for the massive leap.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

That doesn't rule out pacifists based on what you just said. Have you changed your mind regarding pacifists adopting?

This is the definition of a "pacifist" that Aloysius used and we are discussing...only 2 pages ago.

would one be right to think that people of pacifist (or faith) beliefs against involvement in the Military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We were talking about pacifists actually. If you really can't get it I can explain with a hypothetical. Pacifists adopt a young boy. They walk into the child's bedroom to observe one of their uncles molesting the young boy. They don't use physical violence to get him to stop.

That's a nice rabbit-hole you have down there, but I'm not getting into it, thanks bunches.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what you are saying does not follow on at all from what I've said, which was that there was no evidence of any hate crime being committed in these street muggings. I don't think I've ever even heard of of a mugging motivated by hate.

For reasons best known to yourself you've rattled off a list of hate crimes which have no relevance,


Your sensitivity towards the gay agenda and lack of senstivity towards the children involved in adoption is shocking to me and leaves little doubt to me which side your bread is buttered on.

1. What do we call an orphan if not an "orphan"?
2. How can you possibly have a problem with an orphan being describe as vulnerable? They are by definition vulnerable,
3. Tell me, who is more vulnerable and more deserving of the assistance of our state than an orphan?

And once again you create victims of children in order to propagandise ypur argument.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And once again you create victims of children in order to propagandise ypur argument.

Propagandise? Let's not forget it is you who just ran off a list of homophobic attacks for no apparent reason.

You really think describing an orphan as an orphan is propaganda? Really? At least Aloysius made their case about the use of "normative". You have done no such thing. Let me ask you this, is the use of "normative" propaganda?

I'm sure it would be more convenient to you if I was a bible-wielding Neo-Nazi who hated gays but I am not. If your counter-arguments are limited to mud-slinging it's best if you don't bother.

You've just dodged 3 pertinent questions which if answered honestly by you would establish that I am not "propagandising" but speaking honestly and openly about people that are very precious and very vulnerable - orphaned children. If I wear my heart on my sleeve for something we all by right should be passionate about I make no apologies, least of all if it steps on your toes because of your political ideology. Some things are more important than shaping the world into the way want it to be...

I am not "creating victims". Orphans are by definition victims of circumstance and the sooner you accept this the better.

jill_valentine

This is a whole new level of bananas.

Still, I suppose Xena and Gabrielle are still free and clear under these new criteria, so there's that.

jill_valentine

Oh Renly & Loras and Bo & Lauren too. Warrior gays are go.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the definition of a "pacifist" that Aloysius used and we are discussing...only 2 pages ago.

So potential parents need training to subdue any potential threat. So kids can only be adopted by Jason Bourne?

jill_valentine

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a capacity and readiness for violent conflict is not something adoption authorities are seeking out, btw.

In case that's something that actually needs saying like.

Brown Bomber

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a capacity and readiness for violent conflict is not something adoption authorities are seeking out, btw.

In case that's something that actually needs saying like.

Listening can be more important than saying.

It's not about any "capacity or readiness for violence". It's about a determined and absoute refusal to protect children in your care from assault, kidnap and murder.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Listening can be more important than saying.

It's not about any "capacity or readiness for violence". It's about a determined and absoute refusal to protect children in your care from assault, kidnap and murder.

No, it's a refusal to use physical violence. There's a big difference between the two.