More homosexual parents mean more homo kids [Archive] - Debate Policy

Pagan

10-17-2010, 03:42 PM

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C1782 93

KINDA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, lets see the liberals and acadamia get all riled up now, which will be further proof acadamia no longer has truth, facts and pure science as its top priority anymore

Study from the "Family Research Institute", go figure they'd come up with a paper to support their bullshit.

But if it is correct, what business is it of yours?

Bigot Parents are likely to produce Bigot Kids.
Christian Parents are likely to produce Christian Kids.
Hindu Parents are likely to produce Hindu Kids.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Then again most all Gays come from Hetero families.

But bottom line is what business is it to anyone?

MMM a tidbit about this James who authored the Study and heads the "Family Research Institute"

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas

On page 536 of his opinion, Judge Buchmeyer noted the following examples of misrepresentations by Cameron to the Court:

"(i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies – which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data – and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)"

[Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985).

This guy is a quack!

Noir

10-17-2010, 03:58 PM

I'd be surprised if that surprised anyone.

Pagan

10-17-2010, 05:07 PM

I'd be surprised if that surprised anyone.

Ha, more about this discredited quack -

On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists"

At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.

LuvRPgrl

10-17-2010, 06:24 PM

ha, more about this discredited quack -

on december 2, 1983, the american psychological association sent paul cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the american psychological association received official written notice that "paul cameron (nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the preamble to the ethical principles of psychologists"

at its membership meeting on october 19, 1984, the nebraska psychological association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by dr. Paul cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

The american sociological association officially and publicly states that paul cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.

yawn.................zzzzzzzzzz..............zzzzz zzzzzzzz............

study from the "family research institute", go figure they'd come up with a paper to support their bullshit.

But if it is correct, what business is it of yours?

Bigot parents are likely to produce bigot kids.
Christian parents are likely to produce christian kids.
Hindu parents are likely to produce hindu kids.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Then again most all gays come from hetero families.

But bottom line is what business is it to anyone?

so, first you dispute the study,

then you claim it is accurate, gays begit gays,,,so, which is it,????

Pagan

10-17-2010, 06:32 PM

so, first you dispute the study,

then you claim it is accurate, gays begit gays,,,so, which is it,????

I see you skipped "But if it is correct"

Oh well, such is the life of the "Herd" :laugh2:

Noir

10-17-2010, 07:42 PM

yawn.................zzzzzzzzzz..............zzzzz zzzzzzzz............

You don't consider that information important?

PostmodernProphet

10-18-2010, 07:24 AM

actually, it strikes me as logical that a pair of homosexuals are unlikely to produce any children.....

Pagan

10-18-2010, 08:29 AM

actually, it strikes me as logical that a pair of homosexuals are unlikely to produce any children.....

So you're against Single Parents also

PostmodernProphet

10-18-2010, 09:39 AM

I'm in favor of an education in Biology for all naysayers.....

Pagan

10-18-2010, 10:08 AM

I'm in favor of an education in Biology for all naysayers.....

So your "opinion" of biology and social make up of society then ....

darin

10-18-2010, 11:08 AM

Pagan, you haven't refuted one factoid of data in the study - you've only tried to kill the messenger, so to speak. Why are you afraid of the results?

Pagan

10-18-2010, 11:41 AM

Pagan, you haven't refuted one factoid of data in the study - you've only tried to kill the messenger, so to speak. Why are you afraid of the results?

I'm not "afraid" of the results but to take a study conducted by a discredited and known quack who is on a crusade seriously is beyond foolish and ignorant.

Not only that but I've been around Gays most of my life and none of their kids are Gay, not a single one.

So I find this so called "study" to be complete bullshit, especially when it's author is a discredited and known quack.

It's called Common Sense

darin

10-18-2010, 12:02 PM

I'm not "afraid" of the results but to take a study conducted by a discredited and known quack who is on a crusade seriously is beyond foolish and ignorant.

Not only that but I've been around Gays most of my life and none of their kids are Gay, not a single one.

So I find this so called "study" to be complete bullshit, especially when it's author is a discredited and known quack.

It's called Common Sense

Your experience carries more weight than an educated, probably scientific study because it's your experience? That's not common sense. That's you not liking Data that doesn't support what you want to believe.

Pagan

10-18-2010, 12:05 PM

Your experience carries more weight than an educated, probably scientific study because it's your experience? That's not common sense. That's you not liking Data that doesn't support what you want to believe.

Really, a discredited and known quack you call credible? :lol::lol::lol::lame2:

Go ahead, believe what you will :laugh2:

darin

10-18-2010, 12:16 PM

Really, a discredited and known quack you call credible? :lol::lol::lol::lame2:

Go ahead, believe what you will :laugh2:

You are relying on logical fallacy called 'poisoning the well'. Doesn't matter if you don't like the guy. The guy did NOT manufacture the data.

Pagan

10-18-2010, 12:24 PM

You are relying on logical fallacy called 'poisoning the well'. Doesn't matter if you don't like the guy. The guy did NOT manufacture the data.

Really?

Just goes to show you either know nothing about this quack or just choose to ignore it.

MMM a tidbit about this James who authored the Study and heads the "Family Research Institute"

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas

On page 536 of his opinion, Judge Buchmeyer noted the following examples of misrepresentations by Cameron to the Court:

"(i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies – which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data – and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)"

violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists"

At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.

But hey, go ahead continue to site this discredited and well known quack who distorts data to accomplish his own personal crusade. That only goes to discredit your own opinions, it's no shit in my shorts.

darin

10-18-2010, 12:35 PM

If Hitler said "Germans are better drivers" would you discredit what he said simply because you didn't like him?

That's a sign of intellectual immaturity bro.

Pagan

10-18-2010, 12:43 PM

If Hitler said "Germans are better drivers" would you discredit what he said simply because you didn't like him?

That's a sign of intellectual immaturity bro.

Really?

Me I choose to look at the sources, the credibility of the source then form my own opinion based on those sources and factor in my own personal experiences also. This is also one of the reasons why in my "opinion" shit like "Global Warming" is bullshit.

So until some actual credible evidence comes to light to challenge my own "opinions" and cause me to re-evaluate my position I will continue to stand by them. Hence my original response to the post being that of "But if it is correct, what business is it of yours?"

darin

10-18-2010, 12:48 PM

Pagan

10-18-2010, 12:56 PM

The study is credible. (shrug). You don't like the study because it doesn't agree with your ideas. That's evident because you haven't disputed any of the findings.

Please - find an instance where the study made an error, or otherwise can be discredited. Or...just shush - knowing some science doesn't agree with what you wish to believe.

You call it credible, well OK that's your prerogative, my opinion is that's just someones attempt to push their own personal agenda. Until something else comes around to validate it I'll just file it away under useless bullshit.

That and a saying I got from my Father "If you lie with dogs you get fleas" comes to mind here.

But as I stated in my first post -

"But bottom line is what business is it to anyone?"

Noir

10-18-2010, 01:22 PM

The man has undoubtably distorted and manipulated data in the past. It is quite possible he has done so again.
That is not to say that I know the research is either wrong or has been manipulated (so I will not say it's not credible) however I have also no reason to believe it is credible other than the fact that this man who has previously distorted data of a similar nature says it is, and I wouldn't rush to believe him.

darin

10-18-2010, 01:58 PM

Noir

10-18-2010, 03:31 PM

You're showing faith..personal choice...decision - just like homosexuality. :)

I'm showing that I don't know if the research is reliable or not, therefore I'm neither supporting or rejecting it - Just like senseable person :)

Abbey Marie

10-18-2010, 04:09 PM

I'm not "afraid" of the results but to take a study conducted by a discredited and known quack who is on a crusade seriously is beyond foolish and ignorant.
...

Pagan, I am willing to take you at your word that you are not "afraid" of the study results. Are you willing to likewise understand that those of us who are against gay marriage are not homophobic?

Pagan

10-18-2010, 04:40 PM

Pagan, I am willing to take you at your word that you are not "afraid" of the study results. Are you willing to likewise understand that those of us who are against gay marriage are not homophobic?

So you pushing your beliefs onto gays isn't "homophobic"? :laugh2::laugh2:

Seriously that is too funny that you would even attempt say that ....... what would you call it? Embracing homo's? :lol::lol:

I'm a Conservative thus I'm fundamentally opposed to Big Government ESPECIALLY when it comes down to dictating ones personal life.

Pushing for Government to dictate marriage is just another example of how Progressivism/Liberalism has infected everything.

Abbey Marie

10-18-2010, 04:46 PM

So you pushing your beliefs onto gays isn't "homophobic"? :laugh2::laugh2:

Seriously that is too funny that you would even attempt say that ....... what would you call it? Embracing homo's? :lol::lol:

I'm a Conservative thus I'm fundamentally opposed to Big Government ESPECIALLY when it comes down to dictating ones personal life.

Pushing for Government to dictate marriage is just another example of how Progressivism/Liberalism has infected everything.

So being against something is the same as being afraid of it? I thought you had a better grasp of language and concepts than that. I tried, but I guess by your own response, it is clear that D was right- you are afraid of the study.

Pagan

10-18-2010, 04:50 PM

So being against something is the same as being afraid of it? I thought you had a better grasp of language and concepts than that. I tried, but I guess by your own response, it is clear that D was right- you are afraid of the study.

If you're not "afraid" of them then why are you trying to force your personal beliefs on them?

Once again and please answer the question.

Why are you so set on having Government dictate the most personal aspect of ones life? Are you that "Liberal" that you believe that Government should dictate what your family is?

darin

10-18-2010, 06:01 PM

I'm showing that I don't know if the research is reliable or not, therefore I'm neither supporting or rejecting it - Just like senseable person :)

Thing about sitting on fences...the pickets can hurt.

Pagan

10-18-2010, 06:05 PM

Thing about sitting on fences...the pickets can hurt.

“There's a sucker born every minute”

That and -

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical."

Mr. P

10-18-2010, 07:35 PM

Oh goody, another rehash of homosexuality by our group of homophobes. :laugh2:

Pagan

10-18-2010, 07:44 PM

Oh goody, another rehash of homosexuality by our group of homophobes. :laugh2:

Yep, then watch them bitch about "Big Government", "Personal Freedom" and how "Persecuted" they are for their beliefs. :laugh2:

Noir

10-18-2010, 09:04 PM

Thing about sitting on fences...the pickets can hurt.

You'd prefer that I just picked a side in ignorance?

darin

10-19-2010, 05:45 AM

You'd prefer that I just picked a side in ignorance?

I'd prefer you take an honest look at the data and not dismiss it for what you choose to believe about the study's originator. Further, I would prefer you be open minded enough to change your opinion based on research, if required.

PostmodernProphet

10-19-2010, 07:32 AM

You'd prefer that I just picked a side in ignorance?

broaden your horizons.....try a different approach for a change.....

darin

10-19-2010, 08:52 AM

I suspect if the same guy produced a study saying Muslim parents result in more muslim children, the couple folk here would say something like "Duh?? Why would that study even been required??"

;)

Noir

10-19-2010, 10:20 AM

I'd prefer you take an honest look at the data and not dismiss it for what you choose to believe about the study's originator. Further, I would prefer you be open minded enough to change your opinion based on research, if required.

I don't have the time or desire to look into this studies sources, and in any case don't know how I'd know if he had distorted data after collection or what special interests are involved (like I said, this guy has been caught distorting data of a similar nature before by fellow professionals)

And my opinion has been from the start that it probably is true that gay families are more likly to have gay children (or atleast bisexual children).

Missileman

10-19-2010, 05:16 PM

I suspect if the same guy produced a study saying Muslim parents result in more muslim children, the couple folk here would say something like "Duh?? Why would that study even been required??"

;)

That line of reasoning FAILS miserably to explain how gay kids come from normal families. I also find it LAUGHABLE that you above anyone else on this board would take stock in a "scientific" study when you totally dismiss science in other fields.

darin

10-19-2010, 05:19 PM

That line of reasoning FAILS miserably to explain how gay kids come from normal families. I also find it LAUGHABLE that you above anyone else on this board would take stock in a "scientific" study when you totally dismiss science in other fields.

The study wasn't in what causes people to choose homosexuality - the study was to show kids are, in a very large way, a product of their environment.

I LOVE science. Science points towards things - doesn't explain a lot of things. For instance, science points towards, I dunno, intelligent design? :)

Missileman

10-19-2010, 05:26 PM

The study wasn't in what causes people to choose homosexuality - the study was to show kids are, in a very large way, a product of their environment.

Then a heterosexual environment would produce heterosexuals.

I LOVE science. Science points towards things - doesn't explain a lot of things. For instance, science points towards, I dunno, intelligent design? :)

Umm, no it doesn't, not even remotely.

darin

10-19-2010, 07:09 PM

Then a heterosexual environment would produce heterosexuals.

...and stats show it does. (shrug). You are smart enough to read the study's conclusions. Words like 'more likely' come to mind...

Umm, no it doesn't, not even remotely.

(shrug)...it does when folks are open minded. :)

Missileman

10-19-2010, 07:16 PM

...and stats show it does. (shrug). You are smart enough to read the study's conclusions. Words like 'more likely' come to mind...

(shrug)...it does when folks are open minded. :)

science isn't dependent on open-mindedness.

darin

10-19-2010, 07:52 PM

Of course not. But interpreting the results is. Some people hate results because it suggests things they hate, such as the ridiculousness of macro evolution...just for instance.

Noir

10-19-2010, 08:01 PM

Of course not. But interpreting the results is. Some people hate results because it suggests things they hate, such as the ridiculousness of macro evolution...just for instance.

The irony is crippling :laugh:

Abbey Marie

10-19-2010, 10:41 PM

If you're not "afraid" of them then why are you trying to force your personal beliefs on them?

Once again and please answer the question.

Why are you so set on having Government dictate the most personal aspect of ones life? Are you that "Liberal" that you believe that Government should dictate what your family is?

Because what they do is unnatural, and against the tenets of Christian Bible I believe in. You are the one trying to force your personal beliefs, by changing the definition of marriage/the cultural institution we have had for as long as written history. I am just trying to keep marriage the way it is and always has been. That is the very definition of Conservative, btw. (I do appreciate that being called liberal is offensive, so I understand why you chose to call me that).

No fear here; sorry to ruin your irrational argument. However, you really do fear the study results.

Abbey Marie

10-19-2010, 10:43 PM

Oh goody, another rehash of homosexuality by our group of homophobes. :laugh2:

My, my. P. We have both your long-running misogyny, and your defense of gays. One starts to wonder...

darin

10-20-2010, 04:04 AM

No fear here; sorry to ruin your irrational argument. However, you really do fear the study results.

He's a resultsophobe. He needs to stop the hate.

Mr. P

10-20-2010, 08:29 AM

My, my. P. We have both your long-running misogyny, and your defense of gays. One starts to wonder...
:lame2: Wander on and wonder.

Pagan

10-20-2010, 10:16 AM

Because what they do is unnatural, and against the tenets of Christian Bible I believe in. You are the one trying to force your personal beliefs, by changing the definition of marriage/the cultural institution we have had for as long as written history. I am just trying to keep marriage the way it is and always has been. That is the very definition of Conservative, btw. (I do appreciate that being called liberal is offensive, so I understand why you chose to call me that).

No fear here; sorry to ruin your irrational argument. However, you really do fear the study results.

Irrational eh?

You're pushing your belief on others with Government and in the same breath claim others are pushing theirs? :lame2:

So please tell me what is "Conservative" about Government dictating the most personal aspect of ones life? Hate to piss on your Wheaties but that is the very definition of "Liberal".

Look who's the irrational one

Here, I suggest you read this and find out what a Conservative is

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Barry-Goldwater/dp/1935785028/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287588093&sr=8-1

SpidermanTUba

10-26-2010, 01:08 PM