Abacus

They work for me.

dk

dk: The studies contradict one another.
JamesKrieger: What studies contradict one another? How do these papers contradict one another?
(snip)
Give us some references of studies that contradict one another. Support your claims with evidence, not sweeping general statements.
dk: I’ll support my statement…
Dozens of studies about kids raised by gay parents were mischaracterized for political reasons so as not to draw the ire of homosexual activists or encourage anti-gay rhetoric, a new report suggests.
The report, by sociology professors at the University of Southern California, says that that, contrary to earlier assertions, children of same-sex parents exhibit significant differences when compared to children raised by heterosexual couples.
(snip)
But in their examination of 21 studies conducted between 1981 and 1998 on the affects of gay and lesbian parenting on child development, Stacey and Biblarz say this conventional wisdom is wrong and they "challenge the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all."
• A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
• Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
• Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.
(snip)

The 'Politicization' of Research
David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the political spectrum.
"We have allowed the politicization of this issue to erode our capacity to see clearly and to effectively decide policy issues," Murray said.
"It’s all about the politicization of the academic community, the federal grant-giving community and news reporting on these issues — they’ve all failed to provide good information about these important issues of social change," he said.
Homosexual Studies are Flawed Report Says , Wednesday, July 18, 2001 By Kelley O. Beaucar

dk: psychology and human development. The science is unreliable.
JamesKrieger: How is it unreliable? For example, how are the references that I provided above unreliable? Tell us, oh social science research expert. Specifics, please.
dk: Yes, when politics and science collide they produce unreliable biased results.

dk: Courts put behavioral conflicted experts on the stand thousands of times every day, one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution. At least one expert’s testimony is unreliable, and maybe both.
JamesKrieger:That's irrelevant and is a red herring. I want you to tell me how the actual social science studies regarding homosexual parenting conflicts. We're not talking about experts on witness stands.
dk: I already have, see above.

dk: Hey, people that put their faith in the social sciences have a religious quality I can respect. In 1960s social scientists of every flavor from Harvard to Berkley had proven that sexual repression caused sexual disorders, human orientation was a cultural norm, forced busing was the cure for racism and LSD opened young minds to their true potential. Hey, whatever rocks your jock.
JamesKrieger: Another red herring. I asked you if you knew what the fallacy of post-hoc, ergo propter hoc is. You obviously don't, because you're committing it.
dk: James you’re making my point in spades. Its junk science written for political purposes or under political pressure. That’s what happens when science and politics collide. The science is concocted, that data manipulated and the conclusion written to support dogma and doctrine.

dk: Problems resonate and manifest in societies amongst dissimilar people along different vectors. For example the Great Depression of 1929 embodied one problem that rolled around the world gaining momentum, but manifested itself across European, Asia, Americas and Australia nations in very differently ways (vectors). By 1935 Germany was on the road to economic recovery. Sociologists and economists around the world people thought that proved something. In the Cold War when the USSR exploded atomic/hydrogen bombs, and launched Sputnik, scientists thought that proved something. When the Iron Curtain was torn down scientists thought that proved something. When jet planes flew into the WTC scientists thought that proved something.
JamesKrieger: Another red herring. I asked you, why is it that sexually open societies like Sweden and the Netherlands have lower rates of HIV, STD's, teen pregnancy, etc., then we do? Answer the question directly. Quit dancing around and talking about irrelevant shit.
dk: I explained why, nations interpret problems with their own institutions i.e. mask the problem. I gave you a couple of historical examples, please pay attention.

dk: : The hard fact is that gay and lesbians mock sex because gay and lesbian sex has nothing to do with life, except as an obstacle.
JamesKrieger: "Hard fact"? Stating something as a fact doesn't make it so.
Gay and lesbian sex has everything to do with life. It exists, it's always existed, and it will continue to exist whether you like it or not.
dk: A hard biological fact, sexual intercourse requires the participants to possess right body parts.

dk: If you believe Sweden and the Netherlands are immune from MDR microbe, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and crime I would beg to differ.
JamesKrieger: Who said they were immune? I said they have lower rates of these problems, and they embrace homosexuality. If homosexuality was so bad, then they would have worse problems than ours.
dk: The Netherlands masks the problem within its most vital institutions, but certainly didn’t solve the problem of MDR Microbes, sexual deviancy, divorce, IDU, they painted a happy face on it, a mask. Once institutionalized the problem burrows unchecked and invisible, and can’t be seen much less resolved. Think about it James, The Gay Rights Movement has committed to mask the problem with the institution of family. The only way to solve a problem once institutionalized is to cut the institution off from the rest of society and kill it. That’s exactly what happened with slavery in the US, opium in China, and more recently any Arab institutions deemed to harbor terrorism after 9/11. Gay marriage is a very bad idea for everybody, especially gays.
(snip)
dk: If one accepts the nuclear family as essential to Western Civilization,
JamesKrieger: I don't accept that. This is a made-up premise to your argument (more on this later)
dk: You can’t accept the nuclear family because you’re a proponent for Gay Rights.

dk: then clearly the Gay Rights Movement poses a threat.
JamesKrieger: Even if your previous premise was true, there's no evidence that the Gay Rights Movement is a threat to the nuclear family.
dk: Then why can’t you accept the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization? Answer: because you are a proponent for gay marriage. We could argue this for the next 10 pages and the answer would remain the same, proponents of gay marriage view the nuclear family as an extinct form. I have a theory about this, but another day.

dk: If one accepts HIV as a threat to civilization, then the epidemical populations poses a threat to civilization.
JamesKrieger: So do other minorities, like hispanics, pose a threat to civilization? They are at a higher risk for HIV than whites.
dk: I don’t follow, Hispanics aren’t an epidemical population with HIV. Hispanic MSM and Hispanic bisexuals and Hispanic IDU are an epidemical population. It’s the epidemical populations that culture MDR microbes.

(snip)
dk: then common decency requires young men be protected from gay evangelists and mentors in the public square.
JamesKrieger: Gays are not "recruited."
dk: Really, then the Gay Rights Movement spent an awful lot of time effort and time taking the boys scouts to court.

dk: I accept all three, not because I’m a Christian but because I can read, count, see, hear, feel, smell and taste.
JamesKrieger: No, you accept all three because you don't know how to objectively examine evidence. You accept all three because they support a bigotry that you already had. The only thing you know how to do is to make unsupported assertions, and then come up with bogus stats to support those assertions, and then pull wild speculations out of your ass as to the causes behind those bogus stats. You make up your premises, then draw conclusions from those made-up premises, and then claim that you are correct.
dk: You have to call me a bigot, not because I’m a Christian, but because I oppose the Gay Rights Movement. Anyone that opposes the Gay Rights Movement in your mind becomes a bigot. You’re speaking with a conviction that overpowers your reason and common sense. To prove me wrong name me one organization that opposes the Gay Rights Movement that isn’t bigoted?

You can’t, why?
dk: Do I wish or intend harm to anyone, absolutely not, I wish everyone well especially gays and lesbians that carry so many heavy burdens. I have learned from Christianity to have empathy for what gays and lesbian suffer.
JamesKrieger: You don't wish everyone well. You don't have any empathy, because your painting gays and lesbians as some evil movement looking to recruit more people to their "kind." You view them as a potential source of the destruction of society. By painting them in such a fashion, you are the one putting the heavy burden on them.
dk: I do wish everyone well, even my enemies. I now you can’t believe me, but I’m all for solving the problem of HIV AIDS. I feel good about HAART treatments because it makes people’s lives better, even the lives of gays that celebrated by riding bareback. I’m just not willing to close my eyes to the threat the Gay Rights Movement poses to civilization.
(snip)

scigirl

ARE YOU LISTENING DR RICK??? Stop forcing things up people's anuses you sick perverted bastard!

(For those of you who aren't aware, Dr. Rick is a gastroenterologist.)

Fr.Andrew

.

scigirl

Senor (and anyone else insane enough to be following this thread), I addressed the one link that actually works that you gave me here. Hope you like reading science articles.

scigirl

Dr Rick

Good God, man! I force objects through one anus or another several times in the course of an average day; do you have even the foggiest idea what that so called "bad plan" has done for my cash flow? In any event, it sure makes a lot more sense than talking out of one.

Don't even get me started on the gunk that resides in and comes out of mouths, penises and vaginas...

Chiron

I still understand neither the significance of the statement "scientists thought that proved something", nor its repetition. (if they were true scientists, they wouldn't let proof into the equation [/semantics]). You followed JamesKrieger's calling it a red herring with something your "masking the problem" thing. You continued on the masking tack by claiming that, because Sweden and the Netherlands are sexually open societies, problems are hidden. Are you accusing the governments of those countries of hiding, distorting, and lying about the statistics JamesKrieger was asking about?

Citing sexual deviancy as a problem is begging the question: it has not been established that sexual deviancy is a problem in the first place. Is deviancy a crime? Like, should we deny rights to the people who take the road less traveled by? Example: I am a lefty, which gives me one thing in common with about 10% of humanity. Handedness is quite comparable to sexual orientation, inasmuch that is a heritable trait which has been religiously persecuted. Given the 10% figure and the history of persecution, am I "manually deviant"? And how would this be a problem?
I don't recall if it was in this thread or not, but someone correctly said that because "homosexual sex" (should that be anal sex, or is there a different kind?) does not, in and of itself, cause disease, it does not fit the classifications of problem. After all, it's possible to kill somebody with a pair of scissors (righty OR lefty!) -- so are scissors problematic?

dk: "A hard biological fact, sexual intercourse requires the participants to possess right body parts."
You mean an orifice part and a penetrating part? But wait -- what about prosthetic penetration? Or even orifice-to-orifice actions?
While one definition of sexual intercourse is coitus, another is "Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis." Sounds like there's some room for non-coitus there (oh, right... the definition explicated that).

JamesKrieger: "Gays are not "recruited.""
dk: "Really, then the Gay Rights Movement spent an awful lot of time effort and time taking the boys scouts to court."
non sequitur. "I live in a brick house." "Really, then why do you like pasta?"
Notice the name you ascribed to the group: Gay Rights Movement. Y'know, like civil rights for people who are homosexual. Anti-discrimination types of things.

And lastly, about recruitment: how do you retain this idea? Do you intentionally ignore the content in scigirl's posts? Do you employ a proxy to filter out PubMed articles and quotes thereof? Do you simply call it damnfoolnonsense and dealloc its resources in your head? What? Simply: homosexuality is not a choice, it's a product of one's genes and one's prenatal environment. The only recruitment that happens is in terms of participating in organizations and donating time/money -- you cannot recruit a reversal of sexuality.

Lotsa questions, few answers...
-Chiron

Diadectes

Ipetrich, you have hit the nail on the head. It is not homosexuality that gets these people frothing at the mouth, because they clearly have no idea what homosexuality is. It is the thought of anal sex that keeps them awake at night. The fact that many gay men do not practice it (according to a poll in Gay Times several years ago %43 of their readership didn't) doesn't mean that they cease to be homosexual. Sadly, all that senor boogie woogie, dk and their ilk are proving (apart from their wilful ignorance and bigotry) is a distinct lack of sexual imagination.

Apocolips

Hola!

Homosexuals in the United States have the same rights as anyone else. What the militant gay community wants is special rights, and they wrongly look at the civil rights movement of the 1960's, when the two are apples and oranges.

Blacks before 1960 in many parts of our nation could note vote, buy a home, or attend the college of their choice. This has NEVER been denied of homosexuals.

Homosexuals as a whole have better educations, and thus many can spout out bullshit like SciGirl. Intellectualism does not equate common sense. Intellectualism just allows the person to make a better argument, even when that argument is incorrect. People value educated people, and many Americans have blindly followed this PC nonsense, because it is all smiles to them, and since less that half of Americans vote, must work much harder than our parents did for a similiar quality of life, they don't look at things closely, like they did even in the 1980s. People now are too busy keeping their head above water to rightfully throw up at this proposal.

Also, the gay agenda has the blessing and support of the national media, because the media wants the extra dollars and support of the gay community. Why? Because on average, gays make more money. This is principally because gays do not have children to support (except for those who CHOSE homosexuality over their spouses like Bishop Gene Robinson). Those who were "born" gay have no children. When Sci-Fi girl bitches about this, she will affirm that homosexuality is a choice.

SENOR

Diadectes

Such as?