Lesbian Couples have lower performing children: worse than even single mother homes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
FRC had one article I read earlier that was surprisingly honest in it's approach when analyzing something. That was just one author, though.

With Christian groups, you do sometimes get genuine and honest people. Same thing with conservative speakers. Same thing with liberal scientists. I just can't group them altogether and say "Derp! They are biased! Only purely objective scientists and their research count!" They don't really exist.

It would be wrong to assume that all conservatives or Christian scientists (NOOOOT to be confused with Christian Scientists...lol...) should be immediately discredited and their research thrown out. To do so smacks of liberal elitism (check it: that's actually something that some researchers and scientists complain about: the liberal elitism that keeps some projects form getting funded and some people pushed out).

truth^^

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
At the same time, ignoring the context of their studies and simply advocating their views because they were done by universities commits the appeal to authority fallacy.

That said, I never advocated their views based on the premise that it was done by professors of respectable universities. What I did was point out that Adam_PoE not only presented fallacious arguments but on top of that was wrong in his initial assertion regarding the origins of the studies.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
When an argument is biased, it is the job of the advocate to demonstrate that this bias did not affect how the study was conducted.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
In the case of the OP's original example, the. head researcher had some authority to be taken seriously but showed poor biased technique in addition to questionable motives behind the study.

I also believe that combination of fatherhood and motherhood is more beneficial to children in the long run in the context of their grooming, developing a perspective of ground realities of life and experience.

Originally posted by BackFire
But in this case they are biased.

Isn't every single researcher, though?

Originally posted by BackFire
They've proven time and time again that they have a predisposed prejudice against the group that they are 'researching', and so that must be taken into account when looking at their findings.

I agree and I even questioned it in the very first post in this thread.

Originally posted by BackFire
You vaguely mentioning an article that you thought was fair,

No, an author who wrote an article, not "an article." That was one among probably dozens that are clearly biased. That particular author seemed less biased than his peers on that site.

Originally posted by BackFire
without citing it specifically,

Why would I cite anything in this regard? Why do you care? Why do I care? I don't. Just thought it was interesting that, even in a sea of bullshit, sometimes, one of them can try to be honest.

I don't remember the article or have the link but it was the one where they compared homosexual demographics and what happened after the legalized civil unions in Vermont or something. In it, the author didn't use the 10% "homosexual" number to make his point (an often liberal number that people use): that would have greatly made his point that homosexuals are not monogamous compared to other orientations. Instead, he used the low-figure of 1.5% to show how many of the Vermont gay population actually got civil unions. If he would have used the 10% number, he could have made his point waaaay more potent. He didn't.

That's it. If you can find that article, cool. I have no intentions in reading any more of that website. Not to "faith out" on you or anything, but I got an evil vibe from that website. That site, to me, is full of hate and not something I don't want to go searching through, again.

Originally posted by BackFire
isn't meaningful evidence of anything.

I disagree, of course. One author out of dozens being honest in his or her approach regarding the numbers was impressive. It shows that at least one side can stop shit slinging and try to give the numbers an honest go.

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that you're trying to compare actual scientists (calling them liberal is a lazy attempt to discredit them),

You've made a mistake, here, already. I compared liberal and conservative scientists. And to be clear, I think both sides have their extremely biased researchers and both sides have genuine researchers that do honest work (but I think those "good people" are extremely rare and even those really after truth, they still will show bias in their research as it is unavoidable).

Originally posted by BackFire
who by their very nature are people searching for objective truth,

I disagree, here. This statement supports what you say next, of course, but I just can't agree to this because almost all are politically motivated. As I said before, very few are just in it for "objective truth."

Originally posted by BackFire
who are conducting "research" to show something that they already believe and will slant it to meet their beliefs, is just silly.

Yeah, I think most of the studies done in the past were poorly done (that's been argued, as well) and were done by people looking to confirm what they already believe.

Maybe that's because they are looking to confirm their hypothesis before the research is even started? Imagine that: they are all finding what they hypothesize. That's why I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to this politically motivated research: it doesn't matter which side because they all seem to be finding what they set out to find.

However, I think we both agree that this conservative hate agenda that seeks to continue to suppress the rights of the homosexual population is morally wrong. How the hell is that "Christlike"? Hmm?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
In the case of the OP's original example, the. head researcher had some authority to be taken seriously...

I would also note that that guy kind of shot himself in the foot by "testifying" after his research was done, in cases to prevent gay marriage. I noticed he got progressively (no pun intended) worse and worse until he pretty much was fully advocating gay-right suppression. That's the sign of a downward spiral. A scientist shouldn't get that involved if they want to retain their scientific authority, imo.

However, I can easily see myself arguing against myself. For instance, what if he genuinely believes his results show that we should hold off on allowing homosexuals to raise children (that's a horrible notion, but bear with me)? Then should he not, as a responsible scientist, push for policy that supports his research results? Replace "homosexual parents" with "anthropogenic global warming" and you see why it might be appropriate to advocate less greenhouse gas emissions.

But, I am of the notion that social policy is different from industrial pollution policy. Two dudes having buttsex is not going to cause the icecaps to melt no matter how steamy their sex gets. 😐

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I also believe that combination of fatherhood and motherhood is more beneficial to children in the long run in the context of their grooming, developing a perspective of ground realities of life and experience.

Well, that makes sense. I don't think you'll find a psychologist, who is worth anything, arguing that a "Stable Father and Mother" relationship is not the best place for a child to be reared.

The real question is: "Can homosexual parents do just as well as the gold stanard?"

My answer, after starting this thread and reading good arguments is, "Yeah, pretty much."

Glad I started this thread. Is that because I just wanted to see that study destroyed so I could reaffirm my beliefs? Yeah...probably. 😉

I don't think every single researcher is biased, and would actually like to hear why you think that. I believe there are some - mostly legitimate and non-shit scientists (you may call them liberal scientsts or conservative scientists, but I'll just call them bad scientists, because they are trying to search for evidence of what they already believe, rather than let the research drive their beliefs) - who are actively searching for an objective truth.

Also I don't know why you decided to split one of my sentences and retort each individual portion, rather than the full thought. Perhaps because it made it easier to try and alter the context of what I said. To be clear, factually speaking, vaguely mentioning a hypothetical article from some unnamed author who is part of a group of proven bigots is worthless. It's like saying I met a nice member of the Klu Klux Klan, but I don't know who he is and can produce no evidence to back it up. If you want such a statement to have any merit in a logical sense, you must produce the actual article. Otherwise it's just a cute little conversation piece, and nothing more. If that's all you were interested in when you referenced the article, then that's fine. However, it's not evidence of anything unless you find the specific article.

But yes, definitely agree that the conservative hate agenda is shameful and disgusting. And The family research council is a part of that group, just to be clear.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

Will leave this here for those who may not know just how bigoted and disgusting a group they really are.

And this goes back to earlier in the thread to why I am inherently skeptical of every single one of these studies. Not only are they almost always a production of bias, but they're also utterly pointless. Say there is one study that somehow magically proves Homosexuals are actually more likely to be bad parents, then what? What is accomplished? They can't be banned from adopting or having children, so all a study like that would do is promote the idea that homosexuals are lesser than heterosexual in some way. It's not possible for these studies to serve a meaningful purpose other than inciting negative emotions towards one particular group. Most reasonable people know this and that's why the only groups that usually do these types of studies are ones with an anti homosexual agenda.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't think every single researcher is biased, and would actually like to hear why you think that.

Fundamentally, every person has beliefs. The tools selected, the methods used to measure, the procedures used in analysis, who funds the studies, those people involved in the research, and so forth.

If you find me a person who is genuinely interested in objective truth, I show you a liar.

The type of researchers you think exist really do not exist.

Originally posted by BackFire
I believe there are some - mostly legitimate and non-shit scientists (you may call them liberal scientsts or conservative scientists, but I'll just call them bad scientists, because they are trying to search for evidence of what they already believe, rather than let the research drive their beliefs) - who are actively searching for an objective truth.

Hey, I admitted there are good scientists on both sides...they are just very few and far between. And even the good ones bring their own biases to the table, like I talked about, above.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also I don't know why you decided to split one of my sentences and retort each individual portion, rather than the full thought.

Because, unlike me, you're able to pack a shit-ton of meaning into each of your phrases. Not only that, each of your phrases support the phrases that come after. If I can show how I do not support one portion of the phrase, I have a lot less explaining to do once we get further down your phrases.

HA! You're good at writing n'stuff.

Originally posted by BackFire
To be clear, factually speaking, vaguely mentioning a hypothetical article from some unnamed author who is part of a group of proven bigots is worthless. It's like saying I met a nice member of the Klu Klux Klan, but I don't know who he is and can produce no evidence to back it up. If you want such a statement to have any merit in a logical sense, you must produce the actual article. Otherwise it's just a cute little conversation piece, and nothing more. If that's all you meant through your reference, then that's fine. However, it's not evidence of anything unless you find the specific article.

Well, that really was my point: just an aside that, hey, I found one dude out of probably dozens that seemed genuinely honest in his approach. That does not bode well for the website, really. No one will take them seriously besides people that already believe as they do.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's not possible for these studies to serve a meaningful purpose other than inciting negative emotions towards one particular group.

Touché. That's why I don't think it is "Christlike", at all. What about spreading hate shows compassion, forgiveness, and benevolence?

"Because, unlike me, you're able to pack a shit-ton of meaning into each of your phrases. "

Trade secret - I'm just really lazy, too lazy to expand on shit too much these days.

Look at how I quoted you, didn't even do the proper site quote, just shitty old quotes. So lazy.

Also, I never knew you were so cynical. I like it.

If there ever was a study that legitimately proved that homosexuals make for worse parents —  one that wasn't tainted by neo-con, Christofascist bullshit — , it would not be pointless or meaningless. I firmly believe that the search for objectivity and truth is never pointless.

Well sure, in that sense it wouldn't be. I just mean in a practical sense, like, to what end would a study like that serve? What could be done as a result? Nothing.

Doesn't matter, won't ever happen.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well sure, in that sense it wouldn't be. I just mean in a practical sense, like, to what end would a study like that serve? What could be done as a result? Nothing.

Doesn't matter, won't ever happen.

Something can always be done as a result. I imagine a legit study would find causes, reasons, solutions, etc.

It's like when some people oppose deeper understanding of genetics because it, by off-chance, might reveal that blacks are more prone to violence or are less intelligent than whites(just an example). I think it's a shit reason.

No, you really couldn't do anything because any action would inherently be infringing on the rights of the affected group.

I guess what I'm trying to say - and forgive me if my points are a bit more muddled than they should be, had a bit to drink during Thanksgiving dinner - is that I'm not a fan of ANY study that separates people based on race or sexuality, especially when it comes to something like parenting.

There are overwhelming amounts of variables when it comes to raising a child, many that are completely outside of the parents' control, that I feel engaging in a study about such things is ultimately pointless because it attempts to simplify its findings into 'gay' and 'non gay' scenarios while likely ignoring all other variables that could cause a child to be seen as properly raised or not.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, you really couldn't do anything because any action would inherently be infringing on the rights of the affected group.

I guess what I'm trying to say - and forgive me if my points are a bit more muddled than they should be, had a bit to drink during Thanksgiving dinner - is that I'm not a fan of ANY study that separates people based on race or sexuality, especially when it comes to something like parenting.

There are an overwhelming amount of variables when it comes to raising a child, many that are completely outside of the parents' control, that I feel engaging in a study about such things is ultimately pointless because it attempts to simplify its findings into 'gay' and 'non gay' scenarios while likely ignoring all other variables that could cause a child to be seen as properly raised or not.

We already infringe on rights of certain groups based on our knowledge of them. Example: higher vehicle insurance rates for young males as opposed to just about everyone else. It's a textbook example of discrimination.

As far as parenting goes, I agree. It would be punishingly difficult to objectively assess whether homosexuals make for better or worse parents. But if such a study should emerge(I personally believe that it's highly unlikely to), we'd have to put on our big-boy pants on and accept it.

That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right, and so doing anything to alter that right for a particular group would be much different than higher insurance rates for young men.

And yeah, I never said such a study shouldn't be accepted, just that there's nothing of any practicality that could be done about it. Would just essentially have to go "Oh, Okay then", and move on.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right, and so doing anything to alter that right for a particular group would be much different than higher insurance rates for young men.

And yeah, I never said such a study shouldn't be accepted, just that there's nothing of any practicality that could be done about it. Would just essentially have to go "Oh, Okay then", and move on.

If it were only so. Unfortunately, history has proven time and time again that there are no such things as rights, only privileges. Parenthood is a very widely accepted privilege, but it is a privilege nonetheless. Now I'm not saying that we should take away the privilege of parenthood because some study proved that a certain group might be not quite as good at it as another. I'm talking about making improvements and adjustments.

No offense, but your philosophical musings aren't very relevant to this discussion, despite the fact that there's merit to what you say. As it is right now, in every practical sense, it's a right and treated as a right, and so to this discussion that's how it must be approached, less we meet one hypothetical (which I probably shouldn't even have brought up) with another.

How do you 'adjust' parenthood for one group of people, though. I don't even know how that's possible.

Originally posted by BackFire
No offense, but your philosophical musings aren't very relevant to this discussion, despite the fact that there's merit to what you say. As it is right now, in every practical sense, it's a right and treated as a right, and so to this discussion that's how it must be approached, less we meet one hypothetical (which I probably shouldn't even have brought up) with another.

How do you 'adjust' parenthood for one group of people, though. I don't even know how that's possible.

I am trying to say that rights or privileges, or whatever you want to call them aren't static or inviolate.

Adoption, for example. Homosexuals can't have children biologically, so they must almost always adopt. I think we both know what the difference between adopting and having children the good ole fashioned way is. Say, how easy it would be for you to adopt a child right now? There would probably be quite a few candidates for adoption out there that are considered 'superior' to you. You see where I'm going with this?

Sure, but Homosexuals can have their own children in various ways. Maybe not by laying in bed with each other until the stork knocks on their window, like straight people have happen, but it can be done, and is done. Adoption isn't the only option for them.

And besides, adoption is also not a right, but having your own child is.

But if we're specifically talking about adoption and nothing else, then what you say makes some sense.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure, but Homosexuals can have their own children in various ways. Maybe not by laying in bed with each other until the stork knocks on their window, like straight people have happen, but it can be done, and is done. Adoption isn't the only option for them.

And besides, adoption is also not a right, but having your own child is.

But if we're specifically talking about adoption and nothing else, then what you say makes some sense.

Yea, like surrogate mothers, but that's still more complicated than hetero boning and also not a 'right.'

But how, then? If you are biologically incapable?

Well, the most obvious being from a previous heterosexual relationship.

And using a surrogate is a right. Anyone can do it if they find a willing participant, just sometimes gets complicated because the surrogate can have a change of heart and yadda yadda.