AndyMan 7 #51 November 24, 2004 Quote One article hardly makes it fact. It's not one article, it's one study. That one study happened to be done by a very well respected organization, known for doing "good science". The organization doing the study, and the publication printing it are not often accused of bias. The publication itself is well respected for having high standards. The study itself was a peer reviewed, double-blind, nationally scoped demographic study, largely considered the "gold standard" of science. So it's not just "one study", it's "one very good study". If the results can be duplicated by others, it will be undeniable. QuoteI have no control over the general public. However, I do control my own family, and if I were to die it would be specifically prohibited in my will for my my children to be adopted by a gay couple. That is absolutely true, and is a wonderful thing. You've got the right to decide how your children are raised. I would think - and do hope - that your will has more detailed instructions about who raises your children. I hope you've picked individuals to take over, and not just specify their sexual preference. I'm quite sure there are millions of heterosexuals you'd abhor to raise your kids.... The biggest frustrations on the other side of this issue, is that gay people are often NOT given these same rights to decide how to raise their families. Gay partners are often denied basic rights, like making medical decisions about their partners and children, or the ability to specify adoption orders in case of death. This lack of rights is so often justified by myths such as the one this study addressed. Both my loving wife and I are thrilled to see this myth so effectively debunked. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #52 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteChildren from same-sex marraiges are not remotely close to being normal. What is "normal"? You know, God-loving, church going, Republican voting, etc, etc, etc...... Assimilate to being normal like the US Constitution prescribes, not the right be different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #53 November 24, 2004 Quote "If they were meant to raise children nature would have given them the means to create them." If we were meant to fly we would have been given wings by nature. So quit skyflying or you'll be as "unnatural" as a homosexual. "One article hardly makes it fact." There is pretty much no such thing as fact. The more educated institutions you place yourself around, the less people use the word, "fact" or, "proof." There is basically evidence and support to derive a conclusion. "It is very easy for left leaning researchers to come up with whatever finding they choose to find." And it's very easy for right-wingers to paint types of people with hate, especially those that don't follow the right-wing doctrine. "It seems like every year "researchers" come up with more support for why socially unacceptable behavior is OK." Ok, but enough skydiving bashing already. Do you think skydiving is socially acceptable? Every time some jumper bounces, especially in a residential neighborhood, don't you think our sport becomes less and less socially acceptable? Be careful with your slippery slope. "Gays should not be permitted to adopt." Or breath, according you, right? "We can argue forever on whether gays raising children is acceptable or not. I have no control over the general public. However, I do control my own family, and if I were to die it would be specifically prohibited in my will for my my children to be adopted by a gay couple." Tell me you don't sit around pulling your hair out about this. As for the legal issue, you can write it until your hate stains the paper and you will never have absolute control over it. If died, they could be given to a straight family, then reassigned to a gay family, especially if there was no one that saw or was willing to enforce the provisions in the will. I know, just teach them homophobia and they'll automatically start the hate and govern themselves..... or is that they'll hit the rebelious years and experiment to piss off dear old dad? I can't remember. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #54 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuotesocially unacceptable behavior is OK. Socially acceptable revolves around thoughts for that time period. This definition changes all the time as civilization changes. What was once acceptable, now isn't and so on. QuoteGays should not be permitted to adopt. If they were meant to raise children nature would have given them the means to create them. So steril parents shouldn't adopt either. I mean, nature took away their ability to procreate for a reason, right? QuoteI do control my own family, Influence, yes. Control no. Hopefully your family, like you, have their own life experiences to base their opinions on. Not what YOU or anyone else wants them to believe. Trying to manipulate them into your way of thinking doesn't sound very nurturing to me. Blues, Ian "So steril parents shouldn't adopt either. I mean, nature took away their ability to procreate for a reason, right?" Oh my God, what am I? I, unnaturally had an artificial sterialization, AKA vasectomy, when I was 31 (11 years ago), so what does that make me? Am I a rung below the accidentially/naturally sterilized? BTW, this sarcasm isn't against the author of this post, just the author of the post to which they replied. Confusing enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #55 November 24, 2004 QuoteConfusing enough? What's my name and where the hell am I?Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #56 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteConfusing enough? What's my name and where the hell am I? Come on, no reply to the subsatnce of the post???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #57 November 24, 2004 QuoteCome on, no reply to the subsatnce of the post???? it was my understanding that we were on the same page. Unless the sarcasm in my original reply was missed?Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #58 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteCome on, no reply to the subsatnce of the post???? it was my understanding that we were on the same page. Unless the sarcasm in my original reply was missed? My bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #59 November 24, 2004 QuoteIt is very easy for left leaning researchers to come up with whatever finding they choose to find. It seems like every year "researchers" come up with more support for why socially unacceptable behavior is OK I love it. When science and researchers disprove a myth all of a sudden its 'left-wing'. As to socially 'unacceptable behavior', well how prevelant is infidelity amongst married couples? How does that impact kids. Once again a statement is made: gays should not adopt and when asked for proof as to why none is given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #60 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt is very easy for left leaning researchers to come up with whatever finding they choose to find. It seems like every year "researchers" come up with more support for why socially unacceptable behavior is OK I love it. When science and researchers disprove a myth all of a sudden its 'left-wing'. As to socially 'unacceptable behavior', well how prevelant is infidelity amongst married couples? How does that impact kids. Once again a statement is made: gays should not adopt and when asked for proof as to why none is given. Well, it is somewhat true.... Why don't and why wouldn't the media discuss the truth about the HIV/Aids epidemic in the US and UK? Why? because the truth is not PC..... The fact is that in 2003 of all AIDS and HIV case in the US and UK, 60% of those infected contracted the diease through homosexual sex, and 10% through IV drug use. So roughly 70% of all Aids/HIV patients in the US and UK are either druggies or gay..... How come that never shows up? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #61 November 24, 2004 You're seriously taking thiss off topic, but as of yesterday 50% of the worlds HIV population are female heterosexuals. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=hiv+women&btnG=Search+News That said, I completely fail to see how this has any relevance to the well being of kids from gay parents. HIV has not been a "gay disease" for at least 10 years. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #62 November 24, 2004 QuoteYou're seriously taking thiss off topic, but as of yesterday 50% of the worlds HIV population are female heterosexuals. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=hiv+women&btnG=Search+News That said, I completely fail to see how this has any relevance to the well being of kids from gay parents. HIV has not been a "gay disease" for at least 10 years. _Am Your right I am off subject, But your posted link is the exact point!!!!! Media and research groups put out only data that fits what they are looking for. The article you posted is for the WORLD. Then will very rarely if ever say that the Aids problem in the US and or UK is Mostly a GAY issue, because that doen't fit their agenda. I posted what I did because of the sarcastic comment about how studies are "Left-wing" etc.... All I am saying is what is reported is biased. There is other negative data out on Gay Families with Children, but that won't make headlines nor will support the agenda of the group putting it out there.... Much like the GAY AIDS data which is burried in the US and UK. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #63 November 24, 2004 >t seems like every year "researchers" come up with more support for >why socially unacceptable behavior is OK. Yep, those so-called 'researchers' even claim it's OK for white people to marry blacks, jews to marry catholics, and upper-class elite to marry lower-class beggars. Surely the fall of society cannot be far behind! Next thing you know they'll be saying it's OK to get divorced. >If they were meant to raise children nature would have given them >the means to create them. They did; you may have noted that women have a uterus, ideal for turning gametes into children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #64 November 24, 2004 >So roughly 70% of all Aids/HIV patients in the US and UK are >either druggies or gay..... How come that never shows up? ?? It shows up all over the place. It's common knowledge that HIV began as a specifically gay-male and IV drug user disease, and didn't become a problem for both sexes until later. Now it _is_ a problem for both sexes although it still primarily affects men in the US. You see a lot of literature talking about how women can get AIDS because a lot of women think they can't, and that's a HUGE health risk. Educating them is an important step in controlling the disease. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #65 November 24, 2004 From the CDC, US populations: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table1.htm Your 60% figure is not even close. The actual figure for 2002 (which are the latest numbers), show less half. 44% to be precise. Injection drug use reports in at about 10%. Infections caused by injection drug use is dwarfed by infections caused by heterosexual contact. Women: 22% Men: 12% Total: 34.% Heterosexual causes are only 10% less then homosexual causes. My version of the stats (taken from above CDC table) in excel attached. My impresion of the media reports are that they've stressed that women are at risk, and that minorities are at risk. Given that they ARE at significant risk, that risk and until recently that risk hasn't been widely discussed or even previously acknowledged, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I still don't know how this relates to the welfare of the kids of gay parents, nor do I understand how perceived media bias relates to a controlled double-blind nationwide study which was not widely reported. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #66 November 24, 2004 well, you know what they say, figures don't lie, but liars figure! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #67 November 24, 2004 so people who want to have children but biologically can't accomplish this because they weren't born with the means to do so should not be able to adopt? my mom and dad weren't given the biological means to create me. are you saying they shouldn't have been able to adopt me because of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #68 November 24, 2004 This debate raged in the UK a few years ago and when it started I would probably have been on the side of Gays not adopting. That is not that case now. What happens with this debate is that it is layed out as a Gay rights issue when it should be viewed from the opposite perspective: What is best for the kids? This has nothing to do with Gay rights and everything to do with giving these kids the best chance they can have. If you can ask yourself whether it is better for a child to be bought up by a loving, caring Gay couple or by the state and come up with the answer "state" I would be surprised. I believe that the best place for kids is in a loving family with normal (read man & woman ideally husband and wife) parents. However if this option has been denied to them then they are in state care. The restrictions in the UK are such that very few kids are adopted each year (around 5000 out of around 80,000 in care (although not all care kids are up for adoption)), and the number has been declining steadily since 1991 - source www.statistics.co.uk. Many of these kids in care more from foster home to foster home, school to school and do not come out with many educational qualifications. This is a pretty shitty start in life no matter how hard the system is trying. I know people who have been declined adoptions because they are over 40 - is this really going to be that hard on the kids and give them a worse start in life than the government system - in my view NO. Same with gays - give the kids a chance. Will they be teased? Yes, probably but isn't it better than a home? Will they be more likely to be gay themselves? God knows. Lets stop making this a Gay issue and start making it a kids issue - they are the important ones. Sorry this was long. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #69 November 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt is very easy for left leaning researchers to come up with whatever finding they choose to find. It seems like every year "researchers" come up with more support for why socially unacceptable behavior is OK I love it. When science and researchers disprove a myth all of a sudden its 'left-wing'. As to socially 'unacceptable behavior', well how prevelant is infidelity amongst married couples? How does that impact kids. "Once again a statement is made: gays should not adopt and when asked for proof as to why none is given." Isn't that the same reply for most/all other subjects too, when talking to the conservative/moral right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #70 November 25, 2004 QuoteFrom the CDC, US populations: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/table1.htm Your 60% figure is not even close. The actual figure for 2002 (which are the latest numbers), show less half. 44% to be precise. Actually, according to those stats, his comment would have been correct had he said "60% of all men with AIDS in the US and UK contracted the disease through homosexual sex." Not that it has any bearing on adoption rights for gays, though. Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
