Full rights for the LGBT community.

Zubeneschamali

Nodin wrote: »

Good to see you've stopped the emotive language.

I have received a warning for being uncivil to Brown Bomber, and I would like to apologize for my incivility.

BB, I apologize for my mention of male-male bum sex, and my statement that vicarious interest in male-male bum sex is the only possible reason for your fascination with the topic of adoption by gay couples.

I admit that it was narrow minded of me, and that there may possibly be other reasons for your fascination which I just haven't been able to think of, after long and careful consideration, no doubt a failure of my imagination.

The fault is clearly mine for championing equal rights for all, and not yours for wanting the adoption agencies to change their existing rules so as to discriminate illegally on the grounds of race and sexual orientation.

Sorry!

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, if I am such a homophobe for putting the children first at what point do you start putting the children first?

How many dead children from suicide because of homophobic bullyying -because of their gay parents - is too many for you?

Nasty, vile and low stuff.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already told you I have read various papers on this now. None of them were long-term studies, with a large representative sample and used a control group. The last one I read showed that children of married and straight couples do best in school.

Well, you haven't actually commented on any of the papers (plural) that you claim to have read apart from the Rosenfeld study.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

None of them were long-term studies, with a large representative sample and used a control group.

Wrong.

The NLLFS (National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study) is a longitudinal study following the children from birth to 18-years of age.

The Rosenfeld as well as other studies I have posted previously (listed under rigorous studies) in post 707 use large scale nationally representative samples.

Finally, most of the studies I have posted, including the Rosenfeld study compare children raised by same-sex couples against children raised by heterosexual couples, so control groups are used.

Also, if you are suggesting that a study needs to have all three characteristics then you're wrong. I have already posted the best practice guidelines for research in this field and there is no requirement for a study to possess all three characteristics to be considered definitive. You fail to realise that a body of research is like an atlas. Just as it is difficult to the point of impossible to create an accurate depiction of a 3d globe in a single 2d image, it is difficult to answer every type of question with the required level of precision with just one study. That is why we have a body of research in the same way we have an atlas. An atlas is a collection of smaller fragments of the overall picture which must agree when they overlap. Similarly, we have small scale-studies, meta-analyses, literature reviews and large scale studies, all saying the same thing, that same-sex couples are just as good as heterosexual couples.

In fact, as Rosenfeld points out in his study, large scale nationally representative studies are in fact pretty useless at investigating whether children of same-sex couples develop as well as those of heterosexual couples. He points out:

"Using data from the U.S. census has several major disadvantages: normal progress through school is the only available children’s outcome, and even this outcome is measured with less precision than one would hope for."

Large-scale studies don't have the capability to answer the kind of questions that social scientists and society at large are interested in asking, principally whether these children develop mentally, emotionally and socially.

As Rosenfeld also points out, the advantage in doing this type of study is really only that it filled a gap in the literature. However, since it just reaffirms what the smaller scale studies had already said, the utility of large scale studies is limited at best.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The last one I read showed that children of married and straight couples do best in school.

No, it really didn't. I have already pointed this out to you, so if you could stop repeating this falsehood that would be great. As I have said previously, what Rosenfeld actually concludes is:

"To the extent that normal progress through primary school is a useful and valid measure of child development, the results confirm that children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage."

In the interest of academic honesty and integrity he goes on to say:

"Heterosexual married couples are the most economically prosperous, the most likely to be white, and the most legally advantaged type of parents; their children have the lowest rates of grade retention. Parental SES accounts for more than one-half of the relatively small gap in grade retention between children of heterosexual married couples and children of same-sex couples. When one controls for parental SES and characteristics of the students, children of same-sex couples cannot be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples."

I think its important to highlight this conclusion since it is something which was brought up by Lerner and Nagai which you posted previously. Correction for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) is something which is important in having a solid conclusion.


Now, I shouldn't have to repeat this AGAIN but it bears repeating that the weight of the entire body of research on the subject of gay parenting shows that children of same-sex parents do just as well as heterosexual parents. The only thing you have managed to offer to counter this mountain of evidence are fallacious arguments (i.e. bullying) and discredited critiques (Lerner & Nagai, DW Allen). Do you actually have a valid argument to offer?

marienbad

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you haven't actually commented on any of the papers (plural) that you claim to have read apart from the Rosenfeld study.




Wrong.

The NLLFS (National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study) is a longitudinal study following the children from birth to 18-years of age.

The Rosenfeld as well as other studies I have posted previously (listed under rigorous studies) in post 707 use large scale nationally representative samples.

Finally, most of the studies I have posted, including the Rosenfeld study compare children raised by same-sex couples against children raised by heterosexual couples, so control groups are used.

Also, if you are suggesting that a study needs to have all three characteristics then you're wrong. I have already posted the best practice guidelines for research in this field and there is no requirement for a study to possess all three characteristics to be considered definitive. You fail to realise that a body of research is like an atlas. Just as it is difficult to the point of impossible to create an accurate depiction of a 3d globe in a single 2d image, it is difficult to answer every type of question with the required level of precision with just one study. That is why we have a body of research in the same way we have an atlas. An atlas is a collection of smaller fragments of the overall picture which must agree when they overlap. Similarly, we have small scale-studies, meta-analyses, literature reviews and large scale studies, all saying the same thing, that same-sex couples are just as good as heterosexual couples.

In fact, as Rosenfeld points out in his study, large scale nationally representative studies are in fact pretty useless at investigating whether children of same-sex couples develop as well as those of heterosexual couples. He points out:

"Using data from the U.S. census has several major disadvantages: normal progress through school is the only available children’s outcome, and even this outcome is measured with less precision than one would hope for."

Large-scale studies don't have the capability to answer the kind of questions that social scientists and society at large are interested in asking, principally whether these children develop mentally, emotionally and socially.

As Rosenfeld also points out, the advantage in doing this type of study is really only that it filled a gap in the literature. However, since it just reaffirms what the smaller scale studies had already said, the utility of large scale studies is limited at best.




No, it really didn't. I have already pointed this out to you, so if you could stop repeating this falsehood that would be great. As I have said previously, what Rosenfeld actually concludes is:

"To the extent that normal progress through primary school is a useful and valid measure of child development, the results confirm that children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage."

In the interest of academic honesty and integrity he goes on to say:

"Heterosexual married couples are the most economically prosperous, the most likely to be white, and the most legally advantaged type of parents; their children have the lowest rates of grade retention. Parental SES accounts for more than one-half of the relatively small gap in grade retention between children of heterosexual married couples and children of same-sex couples. When one controls for parental SES and characteristics of the students, children of same-sex couples cannot be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples."

I think its important to highlight this conclusion since it is something which was brought up by Lerner and Nagai which you posted previously. Correction for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) is something which is important in having a solid conclusion.


Now, I shouldn't have to repeat this AGAIN but it bears repeating that the weight of the entire body of research on the subject of gay parenting shows that children of same-sex parents do just as well as heterosexual parents. The only thing you have managed to offer to counter this mountain of evidence are fallacious arguments (i.e. bullying) and discredited critiques (Lerner & Nagai, DW Allen). Do you actually have a valid argument to offer?

I hope I never meet you in a dark alley

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

I hope I never meet you in a dark alley

By the time he puts down his reference material you'll be well away.

Zubeneschamali

Nodin wrote: »

By the time he puts down his reference material you'll be well away.

Unless he whacks you with a heavy folder first...

Corkfeen

marienbad wrote: »

I hope I never meet you in a dark alley

Oldrnwisnr'd is a thing.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Are you interested in a serious discussion is it just going to be rent-a-quote for the night ?


I take it you are not in favour of reversing the civil rights legislation ?

No, but that is what you expect to happen right? That homophobic bullying can be flicked off like a switch, through some miraculous process that nobody has already though of.

And if this magic switch doesn't work and you are a child of gay parents getting bullied every day, depressed, cutting yourself, having suicidal thoughts - Then too bad! This is what progress looks like!!!

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, but that is what you expect to happen right? That homophobic bullying can be flicked off like a switch, through some miraculous process that nobody has already though of.

And if this magic switch doesn't work and you are a child of gay parents getting bullied every day, depressed, cutting yourself, having suicidal thoughts - Then too bad! This is what progress looks like!!!

Would you apply this methodology to the other examples I gave you ?

For instance would you ban non -white immigrants for fear thy might suffer racial attack or insults ?

And please don't say that example is invalid as it would be illegal .

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Please quit telling me what I think.

This is what you claim to think:

""I don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another"

If that is true, which would probably make you unique among the entire human population then it applies in all cases, including the one I just mentioned, so you tell me if it's true.

If it's not then why did you say it all. And if it's not true, can please tell which is more important to you: Gay rights or the welfare of an orphaned child?

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, but that is what you expect to happen right? That homophobic bullying can be flicked off like a switch, through some miraculous process that nobody has already though of.

And if this magic switch doesn't work and you are a child of gay parents getting bullied every day, depressed, cutting yourself, having suicidal thoughts - Then too bad! This is what progress looks like!!!

This is exactly what happened to racism and with interracial parents.

Look how far we've come now

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Would you apply this methodology to the other examples I gave you ?

For instance would you ban non -white immigrants for fear thy might suffer racial attack or insults ?

And please don't say that example is invalid as it would be illegal .

I've already told you that when it comes to adoption it is different as there is a powerless and vulnerable third-party to consider who is incapable of making decisions for themselves, the child.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, but that is what you expect to happen right? That homophobic bullying can be flicked off like a switch, through some miraculous process that nobody has already though of.

And if this magic switch doesn't work and you are a child of gay parents getting bullied every day, depressed, cutting yourself, having suicidal thoughts - Then too bad! This is what progress looks like!!!

And again we have you creating victims out of children in order to ram home some sort of hetero supremacy ideal.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already told you that when it comes to adoption it is different as there is a powerless and vulnerable third-party to consider who is incapable of making decisions for themselves, the child.

So should we ban non white immigrants to save the non white children from bullying in the playground ?

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And again we have you creating victims out of children in order to ram home some sort of hetero supremacy ideal.

The people who are creating the victims out of the children (aside from the actual bullies) are the people who will be putting them in harms way, the people who don't actually care about them This will be real life fresh and blood children not hypothetical ones.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The people who are creating the victims out of the children (aside from the actual bullies) are the people who will be putting them in harms way, the people who don't actually care about them This will be real life fresh and blood children not hypothetical ones.

So allowing a child to be adopted by a same-sex couple is "putting them in harms way"?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

So allowing a child to be adopted by a same-sex couple is "putting them in harms way"?

Well we need to ask ourselves some questions to establish this:

1. Are children raised by homosexuals considerably more likely to be bullied at school? Yes.
2. Does this homophobic bullying lead to and include emotional damage, depression, suicide, beatings and murder? Yes.
3. Is this considered "harm"? Yes.

So, yes. Not that it's the parents fault at all but I can honestly say if I was in a gay relationship that I wouldn't have the heart to put a child through this when it doesn't have to be this way, no matter how much I wanted kids.

Black Swan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So there you have it.

Gay people in Ireland are seven times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals, according to new research by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

This wide-sweeping statement is completely misleading (and spurious if taken literally) in that it gives the appearance that the Mary Cannon survey was a representative sample of all "Gay people in Ireland," rather than taken from a small sample of "students aged 13-15" selected from "northside Dublin schools."

Caution should be used when interpreting these survey results. Sample size, representativeness, and generalisability to our larger Irish population may be problematic.

In 2001, 212 students aged 13-15 were randomly selected at several northside Dublin schools in a study to assess levels of mental disorder. About 80% agreed to take part in the recent follow-up survey.
About 6% identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. The study found the mental health of this group was far worse than that of heterosexual peers.

Size: How many students actually participated in the sample, as well as the subsample of LGBT? 80% of 212 students = 169.6 students. To be significant at the p<.05 confidence level 169 students would be the absolute minimum number to represent 2,000 students; i.e., several more students would have to be included in the sample to represent more than 2K. Are there more than 2,000 students that are "aged 13-15" in "several northside Dublin schools?" If more, then this study is not statistically significant.

Let's now look at the LGBT subsample size. "About 6% identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual." 6% of 169.6 students = 10.2 students. So this survey draws its far ranging and "striking" conclusions based upon the survey replies of 10 students? At the p<.05 level, a sample size of 10 students can only represent a population of 10 students, not more, and certainly not representative of all "Gay people in Ireland."

“There were high rates of depression and about 50% had engaged in an act of deliberate self harm, such as minor cutting and overdoses, compared with less than 20% for the rest,” said Cannon. “It appears if you are of minority sexual orientation you are at a tenfold risk of self-harm behaviours.”

Once again, let's look at the subsample size of LGBT students. 50% of 10.2 students = 5.1 students. So these "striking" conclusions that pertain to personal harm are based upon the survey replies of 5 students? From a research standpoint, the n=5 number is so small that the survey confidence interval (not given in above post) may account for all or part of this number due to random variation in measurement.

Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics (1982) cautioned readers how percentages can look quite large and convincing, until you look at the actual numbers involved, which in the case of this survey sample, as well as the tiny LGBT subsample can be misleading, and should be viewed with caution.

**Reference for statistical significance: Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1997), Handbook in Research and Evaluation, 3rd Ed., Table, p. 201.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

This is exactly what happened to racism and with interracial parents.

Look how far we've come now

How far have we come? I've posted statistics that showed that mixed race children are the most bullied of all the races.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well we need to ask ourselves some questions to establish this:

1. Are children raised by homosexuals considerably more likely to be bullied at school? Yes.
2. Does this homophobic bullying lead to and include emotional damage, depression, suicide, beatings and murder? Yes.
3. Is this considered "harm"? Yes.

So, yes. Not that it's the parents fault at all but I can honestly say if I was in a gay relationship that I wouldn't have the heart to put a child through this when it doesn't have to be this way, no matter how much I wanted kids.

If you consider same-sex adoption to be putting children in harms way, then you can't in all good conscience support same-sex adoption?

Brown Bomber

Black Swan wrote: »

Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics (1982) cautioned readers how percentages can look quite large and convincing, until you look at the actual numbers involved, which in the case of this survey sample, as well as the tiny LGBT subsample can be misleading, and should be viewed with caution.

**Reference for statistical significance: Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1997), Handbook in Research and Evaluation, 3rd Ed., Table, p. 201.

This might be one of the most impressive and informative posts I've seen on boards. Huff's point above applies to most of the research into same-sex parenting.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This might be one of the most impressive and informative posts I've seen on boards. Huff's point above applies to most of the research into same-sex parenting.

When should we be expecting your debunking of most research into same sex parenting to be peer reviewed and published? Any particular reason for boycotting oldrnwisnrs latest post?

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have received a warning for being uncivil to Brown Bomber, and I would like to apologize for my incivility.

BB, I apologize for my mention of male-male bum sex, and my statement that vicarious interest in male-male bum sex is the only possible reason for your fascination with the topic of adoption by gay couples.

I admit that it was narrow minded of me, and that there may possibly be other reasons for your fascination which I just haven't been able to think of, after long and careful consideration, no doubt a failure of my imagination.

The fault is clearly mine for championing equal rights for all, and not yours for wanting the adoption agencies to change their existing rules so as to discriminate illegally on the grounds of race and sexual orientation.

Sorry!

If you think I care about who you have sex with then you are deluding yourself. I couldn't care less who have sex with as long as they are not under-age. I don't care how many people you have sex with or what way you do it. I don't care who you marry, how many people you are married to at the same time. I consider myself a social libertarian and abhor government intrusion into people personal lives. I am genuinely sorry you face and have faced discrimination throughout your life but I can assure you it would never have been from me. I don't have a hateful bone in my body, you are confusing my empathy for orphans for homophobia seeing as it is greater than my empathy for homosexuals who want children. Evidently, you have greater empathy for homosexuals than you do for orphans though I doubt you will admit it as it will make you sound callous and selfish.

We have a different opinion on a moral issue. Such different opinions have existed for thousands of years. Having a difference of opinion with a gay person does not make you homophobic and making such cheap allegations is a discredit to the actual sufferers of homophobia.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I consider myself a social libertarian and abhor government intrusion into people personal lives.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in his one.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't have a hateful bone in my body

Heh. Anyone is free to review your posting record - particularly with regard to your specialist little hate-fest; 'zionists' for evidence to the contrary.

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you haven't actually commented on any of the papers (plural) that you claim to have read apart from the Rosenfeld study.

From your first post. The first few I opened at random were pubmed (or similar). I also opened the one authored by the gay dad in Australia and in the introductory paragraph it stated that it was a preliminary report so I stopped reading there as it clearly wasn't what was requested at which point I got the hump and realised that I'd orderered steak and you were serving me hamburgers. So I asked you to select one which above all else was conclusive. You directed me to a report which compiled a series of historic studies, which as I looked into them I realised as I cross-referenced them with the book I found online which analysed them that many of them were sub-standard, or worse, intentionally misleading.

Finally, you (re?)linked to two studies again as the two most convincing and conclusive. I chose one at random and read it. It showed that children do better at school when they come from a home with married and straight parents.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Wrong.

The NLLFS (National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study) is a longitudinal study following the children from birth to 18-years of age.

The Rosenfeld as well as other studies I have posted previously (listed under rigorous studies) in post 707 use large scale nationally representative samples.

Finally, most of the studies I have posted, including the Rosenfeld study compare children raised by same-sex couples against children raised by heterosexual couples, so control groups are used.

Also, if you are suggesting that a study needs to have all three characteristics then you're wrong. I have already posted the best practice guidelines for research in this field and there is no requirement for a study to possess all three characteristics to be considered definitive. You fail to realise that a body of research is like an atlas. Just as it is difficult to the point of impossible to create an accurate depiction of a 3d globe in a single 2d image, it is difficult to answer every type of question with the required level of precision with just one study. That is why we have a body of research in the same way we have an atlas. An atlas is a collection of smaller fragments of the overall picture which must agree when they overlap. Similarly, we have small scale-studies, meta-analyses, literature reviews and large scale studies, all saying the same thing, that same-sex couples are just as good as heterosexual couples.

I am not suggesting anything. I have been quite explicit:

Let me clear about this. What I believe is required for the sake of the child is for a study, ideally publically funded, which is both comprehensive and long-term, with a control group, and free from the fundamental flaws detailed in the report I linked to

No such study exists.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, it really didn't. I have already pointed this out to you, so if you could stop repeating this falsehood that would be great.

Table 1. Children from married and straight homes do better in school.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, I shouldn't have to repeat this AGAIN but it bears repeating that the weight of the entire body of research on the subject of gay parenting shows that children of same-sex parents do just as well as heterosexual parents. The only thing you have managed to offer to counter this mountain of evidence are fallacious arguments (i.e. bullying) and discredited critiques (Lerner & Nagai, DW Allen). Do you actually have a valid argument to offer?

How is bullying not a valid argument?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is bullying not a valid argument?

"You can't give civil rights to African Americans because it'll only provoke violent racists and they'll end up causing hardship."

That's the merit and validity of your 'argument' in a nutshell. It's tied off neatly with a bow in that you've opted to advocate for segregation in amongst your little tirade against gay adoption on this thread.

This is probably your cue for the 'the vulnerable little kiddies are going to suffer'. You could have said exactly the same for African Americans in the 60's - a disenfranchised and oppressed community, removed from the reigns of power. Well kids have rights too, and no-one in their right mind advocates a charter for bullies to dictate that kids shouldn't be adopted by perfectly appropriate same-sex parents, even, shock horror, if there's a perfectly good alternate hetero couple in play. Same-sex adoption is just as safe, beneficial, and valuable as hetero adoption - peer reviewed research makes that perfectly clear.

Annasopra

SW wrote: »

If you consider same-sex adoption to be putting children in harms way, then you can't in all good conscience support same-sex adoption?

Oh he claimed earlier on he was neutral on the issue. He simply isnt neutral at all.

Snake

I'm sorry but I just don't see what the problem is... Who cares if someone's gay or straight? I really can't phantom what the issue is. A gay man is just a man. A gay woman is just a woman. They breath like you, they eat like you. They bleed, they die, just like straight people. The only difference is who they love. Grow up, the idea they shouldn't be allowed marry and adopt is bollox. Why not!? God forbid, someone wants to adopt a child and give it a better life, why does a child need a mom and dad. Who cares if he has 2 dads or 2 moms. It's none of your business who marries who and who adopts a child.


In response to anyone anti gay.

I'm not gay myself, btw. I'm just not a total bastard

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

The cognitive dissonance is strong in his one.

No cognitive dissonance at all I am afraid. I am in favor of small government. We still need the state to protect citizens who can't protect themselves.

Do you think it is discrimination against children who want to have sex with adults to have an age of consent law enforced?

alastair wrote: »

Heh. Anyone is free to review your posting record - particularly with regard to your specialist little hate-fest; 'zionists' for evidence to the contrary.

Anyone? I don't think you can, aren't you forum banned? Coincidentally for personally abusing me? In case you haven't noticed your trolling isn't going to get a reaction so you are wasting your time and in case you don't know already Zionism is a political ideology, not a person.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is bullying not a valid argument?

I think thats been answered extensively in fairness.

Brown Bomber

retrogamefan wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just don't see what the problem is... Who cares if someone's gay or straight? I really can't phantom what the issue is. A gay man is just a man. A gay woman is just a woman. They breath like you, they eat l

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to but were you raised as a child by gay parents?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No cognitive dissonance at all I am afraid. I am in favor of small government. We still need the state to protect citizens who can't protect themselves.

ZZzzzz. Who mentioned small government? You want to restrict single-sex couple's rights through the powers of the state.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you think it is discrimination against children who want to have sex with adults to have an age of consent law enforced?

Play those games with some other sucker. I'm wise to your record.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyone? I don't think you can, aren't you forum banned? Coincidentally for personally abusing me? In case you haven't noticed your trolling isn't going to get a reaction so you are wasting your time and in case you don't know already Zionism is a political ideology, not a person.

Oh, I'm well able to, cheers. As I say - quite the little hate-fest against the 'zionists'. Yeah 'zionists'. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think thats been answered extensively in fairness.

Quick summary then?

All I've read when we get down to the nitty gritty is that these children will just have to suffer it until enough of them suffer it so we can reach a point in the future (which may never happen) when it is not something to be bullied over.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Quick summary then?

All I've read...

Which of course excludes the actual peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates no risks exist.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Which of course excludes the actual peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates no risks exist.

Link to "peer-reviewed evidence" that children with gay parents don't suffer homophobic bullying then.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Link to "peer-reviewed evidence" that children with gay parents don't suffer homophobic bullying then.

Link me to evidence of any parent/child combination that doesn't' suffer bullying? Honestly - you just expose the complete failure of your little culture war with this 'bully strategy'.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Link me to evidence of any parent/child combination that doesn't' suffer bullying?

Could you just support your claim in relation to bullying of children of gay parents?

Which of course excludes the actual peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates no risks exist.

What is this "actual peer reviewed evidence" you are speaking of, and how can I see it?

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

So should we ban non white immigrants to save the non white children from bullying in the playground ?

Brown Bomber , could I have a answer to this ?

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Brown Bomber , could I have a answer to this ?

Sure, sorry if I missed it first time round. I am trying my best to keep up with everyone.

The answer is no.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you just support your claim in relation to bullying of children of gay parents?

Which of course excludes the actual peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates no risks exist.

What is this "actual peer reviewed evidence" you are speaking of, and how can I see it?

Heh. Again - I'm not prepared to play your game. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the weight of evidence, from legitimate peer-reviewed science, which couldn't' be clearer on the absence of any additional risks in same-sex adoption. You've been repeatedly told this, and you continue to stick your head in the sand and indulge private little fantasies. Now that might work for you, in say, a conspiracy forum, where you can dress bigotry and bias up in the colourful proxy clothes of 'Zionists' or 'vulnerable orphans', but it's not going to wash in the grown-up world away from conspiracy indulgence. No-one is buying your 'bullying' pitch - primarily because the evidence highlights it's baselessness, but mostly because it's plainly nonsensical when subject to any sort of critical analysis - but that's generally the way with the old conspiracy 'theories', eh?

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sure, sorry if I missed it first time round. I am trying my best to keep up with everyone.

The answer is no.

May I ask why ? As you pointed out yourself mixed race kids are the most bullied .

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

May I ask why ? As you pointed out yourself mixed race kids are the most bullied .

Because you've made a mistake in expecting any sort of logical rigor to his argument. It's just an artifice to camouflage a baser motivation.

Snake

alastair wrote: »

Heh. Again - I'm not prepared to play your game. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the weight of evidence, from legitimate peer-reviewed science, which couldn't' be clearer on the absence of any additional risks in same-sex adoption. You've been repeatedly told this, and you continue to stick your head in the sand and indulge private little fantasies. Now that might work for you, in say, a conspiracy forum, where you can dress bigotry and bias up in the colourful proxy clothes of 'Zionists' or 'vulnerable orphans', but it's not going to wash in the grown-up world away from conspiracy indulgence. No-one is buying your 'bullying' pitch - primarily because the evidence highlights it's baselessness, but mostly because it's plainly nonsensical when subject to any sort of critical analysis - but that's generally the way with the old conspiracy 'theories', eh?

If your argument as to why children who are adopted by same sex couples would be bullied, then you're a moron.

Snake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to but were you raised as a child by gay parents?

No I was raised as a child by my grandad and nanny. Neither of them gay. My mother and father weren't either, I was raised not to be ignorant. And to accept everyone, regardless of gender, colour, or sexual preference.

diograis

retrogamefan wrote: »

No I was raised as a child by my grandad and nanny. Neither of them gay. My mother and father weren't either, I was raised not to be ignorant. And to accept everyone, regardless of gender, colour, or sexual preference.

guys when a poster starts questioning the legitimacy of peer review and starts using pedantic ad hominem attacks, you know it's time to stop commenting. The patience of some people here is admirable

Snake

diograis wrote: »

guys when a poster starts questioning the legitimacy of peer review and starts using pedantic ad hominem attacks, you know it's time to stop commenting. The patience of some people here is admirable

I don't see what that has to do with my post? I answered a question, I was asked. This would make my 4th post on this thread.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Quick summary then?

All I've read when we get down to the nitty gritty is that these children will just have to suffer it until enough of them suffer it so we can reach a point in the future (which may never happen) when it is not something to be bullied over.

What?

Firstly you ask me to give you a summary of some arguments on this thread. Then you write your own "summary" which is completely twisted beyond rubix cube proportions.

That little paragraph up there is quite hilarious.

1 It completely misrepresents what was said
2 It completely ignores what was said

You really have no argument to stand over in this thread at all.
Every single argument you have made in this thread has been thoroughly debunked and a valid and reasonable counter argument has been given.

Snake

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Firstly you ask me to give you a summary of some arguments on this thread. Then you write your own "summary" which is completely twisted beyond rubix cube proportions.

That little paragraph up there is quite hilarious.

1 It completely misrepresents what was said
2 It completely ignores what was said

You really have no argument to stand over in this thread at all.
Every single argument you have made in this thread has been thoroughly debunked and a valid and reasonable counter argument has been given.[/quote


I'm sorry but denying someone a child on the basis it might be bullied is ridiculous.. My child might be bullied when he starts school but does that mean he should be taken from me? (I'm not gay btw) most children get bullied, and if you teach your child not to care what negative things a person will say about you, then who cares. Children will bully someone for anything, be it their name, their hair colour, if their parents are divorced, literally anything. Bullies are just little shiites. And so long as a child is confident enough not to let it get to them, it doesn't matter.

Annasopra

retrogamefan wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Firstly you ask me to give you a summary of some arguments on this thread. Then you write your own "summary" which is completely twisted beyond rubix cube proportions.

That little paragraph up there is quite hilarious.

1 It completely misrepresents what was said
2 It completely ignores what was said

You really have no argument to stand over in this thread at all.
Every single argument you have made in this thread has been thoroughly debunked and a valid and reasonable counter argument has been given.

I'm sorry but denying someone a child on the basis it might be bullied is ridiculous.. My child might be bullied when he starts school but does that mean he should be taken from me? (I'm not gay btw) most children get bullied, and if you teach your child not to care what negative things a person will say about you, then who cares. Children will bully someone for anything, be it their name, their hair colour, if their parents are divorced, literally anything. Bullies are just little shiites. And so long as a child is confident enough not to let it get to them, it doesn't matter.

Bullying does matter and needs to be challenged and should not be accepted.

On the other hand to suggest that we should not allow gay people to adopt on the basis the child might be bullied is actually another form of accepting the bullying.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From your first post. The first few I opened at random were pubmed (or similar). I also opened the one authored by the gay dad in Australia and in the introductory paragraph it stated that it was a preliminary report so I stopped reading there as it clearly wasn't what was requested at which point I got the hump and realised that I'd orderered steak and you were serving me hamburgers. So I asked you to select one which above all else was conclusive. You directed me to a report which compiled a series of historic studies, which as I looked into them I realised as I cross-referenced them with the book I found online which analysed them that many of them were sub-standard, or worse, intentionally misleading.

Firstly, in my first post, I posted a cross-section of the entire body of literature on the subject to show the number and different types of studies that were there on the subject.
Secondly, the "book" which you found online is poorly researched, not peer-reviewed and woefully out-of-date which I have already pointed out. It does not represent a valid criticism of the body of research we have.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Finally, you (re?)linked to two studies again as the two most convincing and conclusive. I chose one at random and read it. It showed that children do better at school when they come from a home with married and straight parents.

No. It doesn't. I already pointed out to you, twice now, that the study does NOT find that children of married and straight parents do better.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not suggesting anything. I have been quite explicit:



No such study exists.

I have already pointed out to you that no such study needs to exist. You are setting a benchmark which is not required by the best practice guidelines of the field. There is no requirement for any single study to have all three characteristics you mention. Moreover, a study which would satisfy your criteria would be a) cost prohibitive even for a government to fund and b) would be completely useless in answering the questions that would be relevant to the overall discussion.

As several people, including Rosenfeld have pointed out:

"Children raised by same-sex couples are one of the most difficult populations in the United States to study systematically because of their small numbers and their geographic dispersion."

In order to achieve the kind of study you're asking for you would need a survey as large as the census but one which could track individual children over a period of 18 years while comparing those in same-sex headed households vs. heterosexual households on a number of key societal health factors. Not even the US government, if they spent their money on nothing else would have the manpower or finances to do this.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Table 1. Children from married and straight homes do better in school.

You really should read the entire study rather than trying to quote-mine pieces of it to support your argument.

For example, you think that from Table 1 we should not allow gay parents to adopt because their children don't perform as well as children of heterosexual parents.
However, the Table also shows that the children of parents whose income is in excess of $100,000 do better than those on less than $50,000, so maybe we should set a minimum income limit before parents are able to adopt.
Or how about race. The table shows that the children of Asian-American parents perform better than those of Hispanic parents so maybe we should treat Asian parents as the ideal and prohibit Hispanics from adopting.
Or how about where they live. The table shows that suburban children perform much better than rural children. Perhaps we should ban all parents not within 5 miles of a city from adopting.

No, of course not. The raw data doesn't actually tell you that much. It is the analysis of the data which is important and which leads the author to the conclusion which I quoted in my last post.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is bullying not a valid argument?

I have already explained this, but just in case you missed it due to the volume of posts, allow me to explain again.

The bullying argument is not valid because it commits multiple logical fallacies.

It is an appeal to consequences of a belief. You argue that we should not legislate for gay adoption on the basis of bullyingdespite the fact that we know from researching the matter that the children of same-sex couples do just as well as heterosexual couples.

Secondly, it is an appeal to fear. It is classic scaremongering. Not only are you arguing that we should just avoid tackling bullying and accept it, you are presenting it as a widespread and frequent problem, which it really isn't. The irish statistics which you presented have already been torn apart by Black Swan, but it's not like the Canadian stats are any less misleading. For example, in your Canadian statistics you highlight:

"Youth with LGBTQ parents are 3 times more likely to skip school when compared to their heterosexual peers because they feel unsafe."

This makes it sound as if there's a real problem with truancy among youth with LGBTQ parents in Canada there isn't. Data from Truancy Prevention suggests that truancy peaks around 15 years of age. At this age there is a truancy rate of 3 cases per 1000 students. In Canada, in this age group there are approximately, 1.45 million students. We also know from Canadian census data that there are approximately 3.5 million households with children in Canada and that the average number of children per household is now 1.9 and we know from gay parenting research that the average percentage of gay households is 4%. Therefore there are approximately 270,000 youth with LGBTQ in Canada. This represents just 0.2% of the total. So if we take the statistics as legitimate and we say that these youth have a truancy rate 3 times higher than the average, then we have approximately 2500 cases of truancy among youth with LGBTQ parents. Just to put that in context, Truancy Prevention reports that in the 1998-99 school year the state of Wisconsin reported 15,600 cases of truancy per day.

Thirdly, the bullying argument is an appeal to special pleading. As has been pointed out in this thread, there are many many reasons why children are bullied and quite a few of these reasons are dependent on the characteristics of their parents: whether they've had affairs, their job, their car, their house, their physical appearance etc. etc. However, you are only advocating caution in regard to LGBT parents. You have not suggested nor advocated that parents with other characteristics which would cause their kids to be bullied be barred from adopting. Even when presented with the case of obese parents earlier you simply suggested that they wouldn't be considered preferential. However since LGBT parent cannot even be considered, a position you haven't suggested changing, your argument is nothing but special pleading.

Finally, the bullying argument was rejected during anti-miscegenation court cases. Do you really think that bullying should be a valid argument where LGBT parents are concerned but not where transracial adoptions are concerned. I mean you have stated your preference for an ethnic match in adoptions but nowhere have you suggested that transracial adoptions be made illegal like LGBT adoptions.

So, like I said bullying is not a valid argument against gay couples adopting.