Children of Lesbians Less Behavioral Problems
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
New research shows that children raise by three toed sloths are less likely to commit homicides but are more likely to be injured falling from trees.
Of course the fact that there are no children in this group should in no way invalidate the research.
I am not against "same sex" adoption but I think we should be very careful when using such small sample groups for controversial research and unfortunately 78 couples over 25 years is not a large enough group.
Of course the fact that there are no children in this group should in no way invalidate the research.
I am not against "same sex" adoption but I think we should be very careful when using such small sample groups for controversial research and unfortunately 78 couples over 25 years is not a large enough group.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Nice.
This isn't the only research that's been done on the topic. Just another study.
This isn't the only research that's been done on the topic. Just another study.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I know it isn't the only work done on the subject but it is one of those studies that is ultimately meaningless because there are so many variables and the control group is so small.
The reality is that you would need a group 10 times that size from as many nationalities, social and economic groups as possible to make any sort of genuine attempt at accuracy.
The reality is that you would need a group 10 times that size from as many nationalities, social and economic groups as possible to make any sort of genuine attempt at accuracy.
HokieMSG
Active member
Morality aside.
While I agree that a sample size of 78 is rather small, it may be a good starting point considering the fact that it spans 25 years.
Funding by gay advocacy groups does make it a little suspect, however the peer review is an important part of its legitimacy.
I do wonder how large the group was that the results were compared to. (The group of children with Hetero parents).
Morality back in play.
Not sure if this is relevant but...
My wife works in childcare and they (childcare providers) are being told to consider that some children have 2 parents of the same sex when planning group activities.
Personally I could care less about who does what to whom in the privacy of their own home. I do resent some folks throwing it in my face and trying to force my acceptance.
A good friend of mine once made the insightful comment that most people really don't care about the whole hetero/homo issue. Once the militant folks come out of the closet, they now open themselves to criticism by the general public. If they don't like or can't take the criticism, then they should stay in the closet.
My 2 cents.
While I agree that a sample size of 78 is rather small, it may be a good starting point considering the fact that it spans 25 years.
Funding by gay advocacy groups does make it a little suspect, however the peer review is an important part of its legitimacy.
I do wonder how large the group was that the results were compared to. (The group of children with Hetero parents).
Morality back in play.
Not sure if this is relevant but...
My wife works in childcare and they (childcare providers) are being told to consider that some children have 2 parents of the same sex when planning group activities.
Personally I could care less about who does what to whom in the privacy of their own home. I do resent some folks throwing it in my face and trying to force my acceptance.
A good friend of mine once made the insightful comment that most people really don't care about the whole hetero/homo issue. Once the militant folks come out of the closet, they now open themselves to criticism by the general public. If they don't like or can't take the criticism, then they should stay in the closet.
My 2 cents.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
That's me 110%.
8 years ago, I didn't give a damn about homosexuals. Then they decided they wanted to change every law and the Constitution and the school system and, like every "minority" group, lobby for special interests, special attention, and special rules.
Now I'll take every single chance to vote against ANYTHING they want. If they wanted a 10 cent tax credit to feed starving whales in New Guinea, I'd vote against it - just because of who is behind it.
They talk about the bigotry associated with their chosen sexual preference. If they'd have kept their needs and wants within realistic boundaries, rather than going all militant extreme and wanting to change the entire freaking country for their personal gain, there wouldn't BE any bigotry.
They made a permanent enemy in me and just about everyone I associate with. Their fault. They can live with it. We didn't hate them until they started screaming at us about how much we were bigoted haters against them. Call a man a name long enough, he'll eventually earn the title. Might as well be blamed for something you ARE doing rather than continually be blamed for something you've never done.
I can't wait until some of these people cry their way into Combat Arms and find out what happens when men are afoot. The world will blame the soldiers, of course, not those that cried their way into something they knew absolutely noting about. That's how the victim mentality works.
It doesn't surprise me one bit if lesbians' "children" (HA!) had less behavioral problems: they are likely hiding in a corner from the rest of the world, quietly wondering why mommy and mommy aren't like biology in school told them it was supposed to be like. Hard to get into trouble when you're ashamed to walk out the door.
That's my opinion. Go ahead and slam me for it. I won't answer you. I'll just chalk it up to me once again being a bigot for my differing opinion on the matter and go find something else to vote on they want because of it.
HokieSMG said:
This is probably a consequence because it has been a do-not-touch-issue. Trying to get regular funding for this kind of research would have been impossible 25 years ago. So they raise the money in their peer group, get a result and try to get same sex adoption accepted.
AZ Infantry said:
You sound so very American! You show you black-and-white way of thinking so eloquently and life must be really neat and simple. On the down side you rarely know who is behind it. You guess you know and other blanks in your knowledge you fill in with your dislike of the group...
(My apology if it sounds like flaming, but this just raised the hairs in my neck. So no offence meant for the other American members here.)
AZ_Infantry
Active member
I don't consider it flaming at all. You have a right to voice your defiance of my opinion without 30 minutes of being nice beforehand. I'm a man, not a kid, and not a boy, so I don't take peoples' words as insults.
You apparently missed everything in my post except this one little hair raising extreme.
I was never a black-and-white when all this was just being discussed. I looked at the issue, the reasoning behind it, made an informed decision if America would benefit from it, and cast my vote that way.
But special interests happened, which in turn gave way to irrational and outright slanderous accusations, which in turn gave way to legal precedent, which in turn led to even more vile accusations.
I submit for your perusal a very loose time line of the homosexual agenda:
1. "We don't want anything at all except to not be discriminated against. Gay or not, minority or otherwise, we are Americans. We have the same right to the same chances as any other American. You're a bigot if you disagree."
Richard (that's me, BTW) cheers the decision to not discriminate against homosexuals - I did not serve this nation to allow discrimination of any type.
2. "Now that you have admitted we are a minority group that cannot be discriminated against, we demand a legal union like men and women get. Not marriage - we do not wish to redefine the country's roots or enter any bitter discussion about the actual term. We just want to be able to love like a husband and wife. You're a bigot if you disagree."
Richard smirks a bit, unhappy with the way they have twisted the ruling of only 2 years before. But, hey, why not? It's not like they want the term marriage changed - they simply want the monetary benefits through taxes and the right to make decisions for each other. I can get on board with that, as love is love and they have a right to consider the other's wishes just as my wife and I do for each other in the event of medical emergency.
3. "Now we want to adopt. We have a union, and as a minority group, you discriminate against us by using our sexual preference to challenge our ability to parent. You're a bigot if you disagree."
Richard is about sick of this slippery slope legal precedent waved in his face, and resigns himself to whatever the courts think best. He believes children should not be adopted by same sex partners, but he keeps his mouth shut to await evidence that supports or denies his position.
4. "And now, let's change what is taught in schools. You're a bigot if you disagree."
5. "And now, we actually DO want the term "marriage" redefined to be gender-free. You're a bigot if you disagree."
Do you see where a simple concept of right versus wrong existed, and how I supported the right to what is, honestly, fair treatment?
Yet I was a bigot for not agreeing with the next ruling. But I actually kind of did agree with it.
No matter, as I was still labeled the bigot if I didn't stretch that belief into their next set of demands. And the next. And the next...
Black and white? They pulled the shades, brother, not me. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms. But they proved continuously, through their own actions, that their agenda had nothing at ALL to do with equality.
They lied to get what they want, insulted every Negro friend I have by comparing a sexual choice to a skin color, consistently judged me as a bigot just because I didn't fully support their cause, and now want to teach MY kids that they are the victims?
They can pound sand.
They are the extremists. I am not. I simply have to vote as an extremist would in order to keep them from running away with yet even more legal precedents they will abuse and twist to their own advantage.
It's their line in the sand, not mine. Don't blame me for being the TRUE victim - placed over here on this side even though I really had no side.
I detest special interest groups. I applaud equal opportunity (not the farce in the workplace that currently exists). I detest making a mockery out of peoples' trust and the laws governing our nation. I applaud allowing the Constitution and this Republic to stand up for those who really are oppressed.
I detest ANYONE who sees the popular vote against them and sneaks around behind the backs of legal loopholes to put into place rules the rest of America doesn't want. That's not the American way. That's special interest.
HokieMSG
Active member
Standing ovation to you AZ. 
ray: Don't think I could have said it better myself.
I read "The Turner Diaries", by Andrew MacDonald when I was in college. It was interesting. One of the chief complaints from the extremists in this book was that the rights of regular American citizens were slowly taken away, for the good of the people. I feel that this is the type of thing happening now. The government is ever so slowly eroding our rights and freedoms. By making small steps that most Americans can tolerate, they are subtly changing the nature of freedom in America. Eventually Americans will see that we no longer have any freedom, but by then it will be too late to do anything about it, short of armed rebellion.
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT agree with the premise of this book (White people good, all others bad) and while I can sympathize with the characters in the book I DO NOT agree with the message. (Kill everyone who is not white, and whites who support non whites).
I would advocate that everyone read the Declaration of Independance. Specifically the preamble. I have included it below.
It seems that out attempts to alter it have met with no joy.
ray: Don't think I could have said it better myself.I read "The Turner Diaries", by Andrew MacDonald when I was in college. It was interesting. One of the chief complaints from the extremists in this book was that the rights of regular American citizens were slowly taken away, for the good of the people. I feel that this is the type of thing happening now. The government is ever so slowly eroding our rights and freedoms. By making small steps that most Americans can tolerate, they are subtly changing the nature of freedom in America. Eventually Americans will see that we no longer have any freedom, but by then it will be too late to do anything about it, short of armed rebellion.
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT agree with the premise of this book (White people good, all others bad) and while I can sympathize with the characters in the book I DO NOT agree with the message. (Kill everyone who is not white, and whites who support non whites).
I would advocate that everyone read the Declaration of Independance. Specifically the preamble. I have included it below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
It seems that out attempts to alter it have met with no joy.
senojekips
Active member
That makes the debate about as tasty and fulfilling as a Orthodox Jewish Pork Roast.
It would be akin to saying, "legalities aside, incest is a healthy family pastime"
Yep,... I'll stand in line behind AZ on this one.
HokieMSG
Active member
That makes the debate about as tasty and fulfilling as a Orthodox Jewish Pork Roast.
It would be akin to saying, "legalities aside, incest is a healthy family pastime"
Yep,... I'll stand in line behind AZ on this one.
Seno. Morality is subjective, Legality is objective.
I included the caveat simply to give my opinion on the study.
I then removed the caveat to distinguish my opinion under the veil of morality.
Can I assume that you would rather have morality in the debate?
I think it would certainly make it more lively. :9mm:
AZ_Infantry
Active member
Legality does not exist without morality - no penal code exists where no rules are in place to protect one person from the actions of another.
Regardless, the confusion between the two in issues surrounding such controversial topics as "Gay Rights" is without power in the Constitutional aspect of governing law. Or it damn well SHOULD be!
Discrimination is the act of denying an equal person their, and I quote here, "God-given rights" under what American law defines. That law was not created by moral definition, though it carries a certain moral inflection and even understood tradition.
For instance, a man loses his American and "God given free right" to freedom when he commits a crime against the society. The connotation here, of course, is a negative effect upon the demographic. If his actions deny another of their rights or in any other way prove detrimental to the trusts he has been given as a trustworthy citizen, those actions are punished in the removal of certain personal rights.
The very tenets of social law have these two concepts in mind: personal rights versus denial of equitable rights. The very tenets of punishment in a free society also share a similar pattern: to deny the rights of others is to be denied rights yourself, and the extent of punishment is dependent on the extent of violation.
When we look at an agenda... when we actually examine it as precept and not emotion, only the above matters. In America, majority vote is SUPPOSED to set these limitations and rights.
A "Special Interest" group, then, is defined by exactly that description: self over society.
The argument only reaches a head when the issue of society's collective morality interferes with the legality of those discriminated against. When segregation was abolished, it was proven that, along with the social ramifications of the value of conducive citizen input regardless of skin color, it was illegal to deny rights based on prejudicial circumstances that could not be changed by either morality or legality.
In other words, stigma was no longer warranted as a viable legality as the denial of equitable rights.
Unfortunately, homosexuals have taken this very simple, very moral, very humane decision and twisted it to define themselves as victims. Although they do not share the social value in their "minority" capacity as Negroes, and although they have zero proof that sexual preference is anything but a preference, they continually categorize themselves within the same parameters.
The result is a bunch of college twits, some on this board, buying into the legality/morality comparison that does not, has not, and never will exist except in the childish minds of the easily fooled.
The concepts are intertwined. They are not mutually debatable in this subject. The relationship is symbiotic, with one existing only as long as the other does.
Wow, I REALLY need to go fix the ol' lady's engine, lol.
OK, sorry... lecture over.
Regardless, the confusion between the two in issues surrounding such controversial topics as "Gay Rights" is without power in the Constitutional aspect of governing law. Or it damn well SHOULD be!
Discrimination is the act of denying an equal person their, and I quote here, "God-given rights" under what American law defines. That law was not created by moral definition, though it carries a certain moral inflection and even understood tradition.
For instance, a man loses his American and "God given free right" to freedom when he commits a crime against the society. The connotation here, of course, is a negative effect upon the demographic. If his actions deny another of their rights or in any other way prove detrimental to the trusts he has been given as a trustworthy citizen, those actions are punished in the removal of certain personal rights.
The very tenets of social law have these two concepts in mind: personal rights versus denial of equitable rights. The very tenets of punishment in a free society also share a similar pattern: to deny the rights of others is to be denied rights yourself, and the extent of punishment is dependent on the extent of violation.
When we look at an agenda... when we actually examine it as precept and not emotion, only the above matters. In America, majority vote is SUPPOSED to set these limitations and rights.
A "Special Interest" group, then, is defined by exactly that description: self over society.
The argument only reaches a head when the issue of society's collective morality interferes with the legality of those discriminated against. When segregation was abolished, it was proven that, along with the social ramifications of the value of conducive citizen input regardless of skin color, it was illegal to deny rights based on prejudicial circumstances that could not be changed by either morality or legality.
In other words, stigma was no longer warranted as a viable legality as the denial of equitable rights.
Unfortunately, homosexuals have taken this very simple, very moral, very humane decision and twisted it to define themselves as victims. Although they do not share the social value in their "minority" capacity as Negroes, and although they have zero proof that sexual preference is anything but a preference, they continually categorize themselves within the same parameters.
The result is a bunch of college twits, some on this board, buying into the legality/morality comparison that does not, has not, and never will exist except in the childish minds of the easily fooled.
The concepts are intertwined. They are not mutually debatable in this subject. The relationship is symbiotic, with one existing only as long as the other does.
Wow, I REALLY need to go fix the ol' lady's engine, lol.
OK, sorry... lecture over.
senojekips
Active member
If that were true all lawyers would be on Social service payments.
In a perfect world, laws would be based on morality.Can I assume that you would rather have morality in the debate?
HokieMSG
Active member
Seno,
I do enjoy debating with you.
As AZ puts it, Morality and Legality are sybiotic.
Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
Legality: the state or quality of being in conformity with the law; lawfulness.
Legality is based on Morality and is culturally dependant.
So I agree with you (That laws should be based on morality).
Something that is considered moral may not be considered legal, when viewed in a cultural context.
All too often we assume the converse is true as well. i.e. that just because something is legal, that it is moral also and this is NOT the case.
As far as Lawyers are concerned, we have too many of them.