what's your position on gay adoption?

[$tinkle]

given the paltry state of the foster care system in most states, i'm first & foremost for the well-being of the children without respect to the sexual orientation of the adoptive home. however, i may be re-evaluating that stance after reading this (http://www.earnedmedia.org/fri0301.htm).

Most quoteworthy:Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, reported the data in the March issue of Psychological Reports, a refereed scientific journal. "It is likely that these rates apply to the nation's estimated half million foster children," he said. "What's shocking, is that 34% of the molestations were homosexual."

"Professional societies are so taken with gay rights they are ignoring the evidence. Just last year,[1] the American Psychological Association declared opposition to 'discrimination' against lesbian or gay parents adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services," said Dr. Cameron. "How does the APA answer this new evidence? In what appears to be the only other published survey of molestations by foster parents, 6 of 3,714 adults[2] reported serious sexual advances by foster parents, and half of these were homosexual. Likewise, in a large random sample[3] 1 of every 136 adults reported sex with a parent, whereas 5 (29%) of the 17 with a homosexual parent did. These new Illinois findings also suggest that a child's risk of being molested is considerably higher when their parent engages in homosexuality."let's dispense with "you gay-hater" & have a healthy debate on this topic, m-kay?

[Toshi]

a) i can't find reference to "psychological reports" in a cursory googling. bs?
b) paul cameron is not a reliable source, and not a m.d. (his ph.d. appears to be in psychology, but he is not currently licensed to practice psychology.) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
c) cameron has made this claim before, and a JUDGE told him what's up:

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 referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9

please do your own fact checking before you post blatant falsehoods on this board.

[llkoolkeg]

Geez...I don't know. Better a gay home than no home, but you certainly don't want to increase their likelihood of sexual abuse or being indoctrinated into the fold. Then again, I'm not sure you can fairly equate child molestors with gay folk. From what I have learned about child molestors, they usually care less about the sex of their victims than their age, i.e. it's not so much that they are seeking gay sex, but sex with a child. Also, statistical studies such as this can often be skewed by presupposing a conclusion based upon subconscious prejudices. Hell, you could probably do a study that finds that children adopted into minority households stand a greater chance of becoming victims of crime, but you certainly don't want to discourage minority adoption.

[ALEXIS_DH]

"Family Research Institute"???????
truly, that doesnt sound like a very credible source.

seems to me they were trying to came up with data to support an a-priori conclusion.

and 5 out of 17 homo parents?? dude, that is very small, dont you think?? and a very small polling group, coming from a institute called "Family Research Institute" is at least shady.

and even so, i dont see a link or direct causality, but rather a casuality link in the best scenario...

[ALEXIS_DH]

dammit toshi, you beat me by 180 seconds!!

[clancy98]

i think gay kids should be allowed to be adopted just like any other kid...

[Changleen]

given the paltry state of the foster care system in most states, i'm first & foremost for the well-being of the children without respect to the sexual orientation of the adoptive home. however, i may be re-evaluating that stance after reading this (http://www.earnedmedia.org/fri0301.htm).

Most quoteworthy:let's dispense with "you gay-hater" & have a healthy debate on this topic, m-kay?After reading Toshi's comments it seems that once again you are happy to cease on any justification for your ridiculous prejudices and discrimination. Maybe this'll teach you to look at both sides of an argument before coming to a decision in future? I doubt it though...

[Velocity Girl]

given the paltry state of the foster care system in most states, i'm first & foremost for the well-being of the children without respect to the sexual orientation of the adoptive home. however, i may be re-evaluating that stance after reading this (http://www.earnedmedia.org/fri0301.htm).

Most quoteworthy:let's dispense with "you gay-hater" & have a healthy debate on this topic, m-kay?


From the article....What's shocking, is that 34% of the molestations were homosexual."

So that means the other 66% were non-homesexual. 34 vs. 66...last time I checked 34 was less than 66...so the bigger percentage is non-homesexual and it's the smaller percentage they're picking on.....Seems to me that it's the straight individuals that are the ones who shouldn't be allowed foster children!!!

[Changleen]

From the article....What's shocking, is that 34% of the molestations were homosexual."

So that means the other 66% were non-homesexual. 34 vs. 66...last time I checked 34 was less than 66...so the bigger percentage is non-homesexual and it's the smaller percentage they're picking on.....Seems to me that it's the straight individuals that are the ones who shouldn't be allowed foster children!!!$tinkle has the same amazing ability as GW to ignore inconvenient facts when there's a chance to reinforce his conservative white male 'superiority' complex.

[sanjuro]

From the article....What's shocking, is that 34% of the molestations were homosexual."

So that means the other 66% were non-homesexual. 34 vs. 66...last time I checked 34 was less than 66...so the bigger percentage is non-homesexual and it's the smaller percentage they're picking on.....Seems to me that it's the straight individuals that are the ones who shouldn't be allowed foster children!!!

Good point!!! I say ban all heterosexual foster parents, because 66% of all molestions are from straight people!!!!! Only gays can be trusted!!!!

One time I got into a huge debate (luckily not argument) about homosexuality, and the person who took the "against" started using information he culled from the internet. It was very difficult to discuss the topic when your facts are from a very dubious source.

I live in a neighborhood with many gay families including many adoptions. I don't think twice about it.

[sanjuro]

a) i can't find reference to "psychological reports" in a cursory googling. bs?
b) paul cameron is not a reliable source, and not a m.d. (his ph.d. appears to be in psychology, but he is not currently licensed to practice psychology.) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
c) cameron has made this claim before, and a JUDGE told him what's up:



please do your own fact checking before you post blatant falsehoods on this board.

Great research, Toshi. I scan some of the information refuting the Family Institute on the ucdavis.edu site. I like this one:

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."

[-BB-]

Geez...I don't know. Better a gay home than no home, but you certainly don't want to increase their likelihood of sexual abuse or being indoctrinated into the fold. Then again, I'm not sure you can fairly equate child molestors with gay folk. From what I have learned about child molestors, they usually care less about the sex of their victims than their age, i.e. it's not so much that they are seeking gay sex, but sex with a child. Also, statistical studies such as this can often be skewed by presupposing a conclusion based upon subconscious prejudices. Hell, you could probably do a study that finds that children adopted into minority households stand a greater chance of becoming victims of crime, but you certainly don't want to discourage minority adoption.


IMO, a Kid should first be put with a "straight" family, but if that is not an option, then it is OK to go to a same Sex family.
Just like kids shoulld first be placed with a family of teh same ethnicity, and then with one of another ethnicity.

The simple reason is that they will usually be better adjusted and exposed to their own heritage/sexuality when placed with similar parents.

Take a black child for example. What are set of white parents going to know about the prejudice that the child will experience growing up, and how do they console the child when they have never been through it themselves.

My opinion at least...

[Silver]

a) i can't find reference to "psychological reports" in a cursory googling. bs?


This is the best I could find:

http://ammons.ammonsscientific.com/homepage/publication.php

http://www.unlockresearch.com/content/article/3/38/0/1

First, a quote from $tinkle's article:

Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, reported the data in the March issue of Psychological Reports, a refereed scientific journal.

From my second link, we find this:

A third distinction lies in the fact that authors pay a preprint charge of $27.50 per signature proof (multiples of four pages) plus extra charges for tables and figures. There always have been scientific and professional journals in which authors help to defray publication costs, but the preprint charge format remains an exception among scientific publications – and on first encounter some people do find it surprising.

Fourth, and finally, the range of content encompassed by the journal is, by any standard, exceptionally wide. As the journal's front-material statement makes clear:


The purpose of this journal is to encourage scientific originality and creativity. Material of the following kinds is carried: experimental or theoretical articles dealing with perceptual or motor skills, especially as affected by experience; articles on general methodology; new materials listings and reviews. All material of scientific merit will be taken in some form (emphasis mine).

Now, the quote from above pertains to Perceptual and Motor skills, but I'm going to go out on a very short and sturdy limb and guess that the same guidelines apply to Psychological Reports. It looks to me like the esteemed Dr. Cameron found a journal where he could basically self publish. I can't say for sure without reading the article, but let me just say I'm skeptical. (And I'm not paying $410 a year for a subscription to find out.)

[Lexx D]

Wow no response from mr stinkle :think: Too bad really, he probably thought he had finally found grounds to hate homosexuals.

[Silver]

Now, more fun with numbers:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/81/story_8198.html

82% of Americans call themselves Christian, according to that.

From $tinkle's article:


In responding to the Freedom of Information Act request, Illinois became the first state to disclose the kinds of abuse of its foster and adoptive children. Every year, Illinois has about 60,000 children in 4,300 foster- or adoption-subsidized homes. For the 6-year period (1997-2002), after investigation, 966 parents were determined to have violated their charges.

So, a little arithmetic tells me that of those 966 parents who violated their charges, a stunning 792.12 of them happened to be Christian.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Christian parents should not be allowed to adopt, since they are the primary abusers of children. After all, if God wanted them to have kids, he would have made the wife pregnant, right? Can't they take a hint?

[valve bouncer]

Wow no response from mr stinkle :think: Too bad really, he probably thought he had finally found grounds to hate homosexuals.
Probably licking his wounds, or rather madly googling to come up with some obscure Romanian study that concludes gays are 31.5% more likely to eat their young.

[TheMontashu]

Im am not sure if I agree with gays or not, but they SHOULD be able to adopt kid. The foster system is ****ed and I don't have a problem with gays adopting even if the foster system did work

[mack]

Most of them will have a better life at a gay couples house than at those orphan centers and foster care places.

[sanjuro]

Most of them will have a better life at a gay couples house than at those orphan centers and foster care places.

Yes those dual-income, college-educated couples should be the absolute last option. Before you know it, the kids would grow up drinking chardonay and knitting duvet covers. Or watching football and fixing motorcycles.

[Silver]

Also, reading that again, it looks like he was the one that released it to the wire service.

So, if I'm correct, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it looks like Cameron self publishes in a fairly obscure journal, and then puts a press release out on the Christian news wire that references himself as an authoritative source.

Or am I wrong?

[Brian HCM#1]

it looks like Cameron self publishes in a fairly obscure journal, and then puts a press release out on the Christian news wire that references himself as an authoritative source.

Or am I wrong?I guess he's lucky he's not a Catholic.

[Brian HCM#1]

I can understand it may be difficult for a child as they get older as far as being teased in school. However there is no reason a gay couple can't raise a child I'm also willing to bet they wouldn't try to convince the child to become gay and live a gay lifestyle either.

[$tinkle]

so, instead of debating the topic, you froth (yeah you!) on about how "this can't be true -- there must be a way out of this" & go right for your old stand-by: ad-hominem. i'll allow you - just for now - to take the debate off course & will return in kind (did you expect anything else from me?)a) i can't find reference to "psychological reports" in a cursory googling. bs?
b) paul cameron is not a reliable source, and not a m.d. (his ph.d. appears to be in psychology, but he is not currently licensed to practice psychology.) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
c) cameron has made this claim before, and a JUDGE told him what's up:a) your cursory googling is just that; and as such, is without any merit upon which you could perch the beginnings of any salient point; ever heard of lexisnexis? c'mon, quit being a one trick pony & celebrate diversity will ya?
b) the humanities dept of uc-davis? other than they, all i see persecuting dr cameron are the most stridently militant gay advocates. they neglected to mention that his resignation was accepted (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Resignation-letter.html), but did try to pass off a red herring: "the APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated". that they would attempt to pass this off as relevant is almost as disappointing as your acceptance of it. (we'll address your ironic accusation of posting blatant falsehoods in just a moment). i also noticed ucdavis cited the kinsey institute as a "reliable source". who's remiss in fact-checking now, toshi? did you honestly think you could pawn off uc-davis as an on-balance source? why don't i just trot out bob jones university for racial studies?
c) "judge" buchmeyer isn't a model jurist, as evidenced by: his being put out to pasture (http://frontburner2.dmagazine.com/archives/002655.html)Judge Jerry Buchmeyer, who by imposing 14-1 after it had been voted down by Dallas citizens single-handedly overthrew democratic governance and created insitutional chaos at Dallas City Hall, has gone to "senior status"--which means he still gets a paycheck but won't be allowed to do further harm. Kay Bailey tapped U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle to replace him, and the presidential nomination came through yesterday.how coherent was he when he gave his "scathing" assessment of dr cameron?
judge buchmeyer found wandering neighborhood (http://tig.mu.nu/archives/016266.html)He was found by members of the Dallas Police Department at 5:30 a.m. on Friday morning, "slurring his words, had scratch wounds on his arms and legs, and his lips were slightly purplish." He was transported to a local hospital.he's also fond of forcing public housing in established communities, just b/c he thinks they're not white enough. not so bad as long as it's not his back yard, eh?please do your own fact checking before you post blatant falsehoods on this board.that's buttery rich my thin-skinned friend; i'll do my fact checking and yours.

let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? i know you don't ignore me you attention-whore, with your "lookit my thread" sig. can you appreciate this debate is not about you?


think of the children.

[Toshi]

this is all i have to say to you. no more clicking on "View Post" for me -- you've shown your true colors all too clearly.

http://students.washington.edu/tjclark/ignore.jpg

[$tinkle]

"Family Research Institute"???????
truly, that doesnt sound like a very credible source.

seems to me they were trying to came up with data to support an a-priori conclusion.isn't that just what you'll be doing next with your a-priori position of the FRI not "sounding like a very credible source"?

[$tinkle]

After reading Toshi's comments it seems that once again you are happy to cease [sic] on any justification for your ridiculous prejudices and discrimination. Maybe this'll teach you to look at both sides of an argument before coming to a decision in future? I doubt it though...after reading your comment, it's evident you still cannot read nor spell, and still have your predilection to be against anything you project i'm for.

to review: my position is that i am currently for gay household adoption.
my stance is currently under review, given in part by the article from the first post, and any merits it may or may not bring.

(why did i just do that for you?)

[$tinkle]

From the article....What's shocking, is that 34% of the molestations were homosexual."

So that means the other 66% were non-homesexual. 34 vs. 66...last time I checked 34 was less than 66...so the bigger percentage is non-homesexual and it's the smaller percentage they're picking on.....Seems to me that it's the straight individuals that are the ones who shouldn't be allowed foster children!!!what's missing is the proportion of households that are gay/straight. if it's evenly split, then heteroes have some splainin' to do.

that data should have been there, & i didn't catch that til you pointed out your observation.

[$tinkle]

This is the best I could find:

http://ammons.ammonsscientific.com/homepage/publication.php

http://www.unlockresearch.com/content/article/3/38/0/1
actually clicking on my linked article reveals:
Psychological Reports is a refereed scientific journal (see PubMed, the search engine of the National Library of Medicine). The cite is 2005;96:227-230.
First, a quote from $tinkle's article:

Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, reported the data in the March issue of Psychological Reports, a refereed scientific journal.

From my second link, we find this:

A third distinction lies in the fact that authors pay a preprint charge of $27.50 per signature proof (multiples of four pages) plus extra charges for tables and figures. There always have been scientific and professional journals in which authors help to defray publication costs, but the preprint charge format remains an exception among scientific publications – and on first encounter some people do find it surprising.

Fourth, and finally, the range of content encompassed by the journal is, by any standard, exceptionally wide. As the journal's front-material statement makes clear:


The purpose of this journal is to encourage scientific originality and creativity. Material of the following kinds is carried: experimental or theoretical articles dealing with perceptual or motor skills, especially as affected by experience; articles on general methodology; new materials listings and reviews. All material of scientific merit will be taken in some form (emphasis mine).

Now, the quote from above pertains to Perceptual and Motor skills, but I'm going to go out on a very short and sturdy limb and guess that the same guidelines apply to Psychological Reports. It looks to me like the esteemed Dr. Cameron found a journal where he could basically self publish. I can't say for sure without reading the article, but let me just say I'm skeptical. (And I'm not paying $410 a year for a subscription to find out.)you conveniently left this quote out from your unlockresources linkSo far as I can ascertain, all reports receive multiple (and external) peer reviews. i don't fullly understand how publishing & peer-reviewing works, but this appears to be on the up & up

btw, what's your position on gay adoption?

[$tinkle]

Now, more fun with numbers:

82% of Americans call themselves Christian, according to that.

From $tinkle's article:


In responding to the Freedom of Information Act request, Illinois became the first state to disclose the kinds of abuse of its foster and adoptive children. Every year, Illinois has about 60,000 children in 4,300 foster- or adoption-subsidized homes. For the 6-year period (1997-2002), after investigation, 966 parents were determined to have violated their charges.

So, a little arithmetic tells me that of those 966 parents who violated their charges, a stunning 792.12 of them happened to be Christian.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Christian parents should not be allowed to adopt, since they are the primary abusers of children. After all, if God wanted them to have kids, he would have made the wife pregnant, right? Can't they take a hint?how do you translate christians as a percentage of americans to christians as a percentage of adoptive families? there's absolutely no causality present.

your comparison is as absurd as preventing adoption by adults over five feet tall, since most of the abuse is at the hands of those looming figures.

[$tinkle]

Most of them will have a better life at a gay couples house than at those orphan centers and foster care places.holy crap.
you spelled everything right w/o any edits. (you did forget an apostrophe, however)

just for that, i'm going to let you slide w/o linking any sources for your well thought out research.

[$tinkle]

Also, reading that again, it looks like he was the one that released it to the wire service.

So, if I'm correct, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it looks like Cameron self publishes in a fairly obscure journal, and then puts a press release out on the Christian news wire that references himself as an authoritative source.

Or am I wrong?isn't that what congressmen do daily? issue a press release...on our tax dollars?

does this fall within the "normal" process for getting research published to an interested party?

[clancy98]

while I can't agree with all of $tinkle's policies...

That was like at the end of con air with the plane.

He just ran a plane into all of your ****s.

go $tinkle

[narlus]

if these data are being represented on an n number of 17, there's no need for comment.

[$tinkle]

if these data are being represented on an n number of 17, there's no need for comment.so if 17 children being abused isn't enough, what's your threshold? shall the scant few that are known from the data offered in this report from one state over six years be discounted as insiginificant? shall we wait to comment until the proportions are more "favorable" for a hetero attack just to protect the precious agenda of a militant minority? (frothing comments give this implication due diligence). don't think in terms of vilifying paul cameron, but rather consider the data (where "data" represents actual children who are in the foster system)

from no matter where the source, child abuse in all forms is abhorrent. any demonstration of a pattern of abuse by an individual or a group should be met with the most severe punishment & subsequent restrictions upon the individuals or groups. however, we should not wait until the abuse has happened if it can be predicted (extremely hard to do, i concede).

perhaps there's a stronger correlation from a larger sample space for married vs single households in the foster system, or simply households not involved in the foster system. if anyone has that data available, do share.

as an aside, florida forbids gay adoption (but not fostering), but does allow certain felons and drug users to adopt if they're straight. perhaps that's not in the best interest of the kids, allowing perhaps the truly recovered or rehabilitated.

[Silver]

I'm fine with adoption by homosexual couples.

Anyways, back to the point, this guy is in no way an authoritative source. Just having a doctorate doesn't make him one. Hell, my high school biology teacher had a doctorate in botany and is a very ardent young earth creationist.

Basically, since I can't read the study, I'm not taking Cameron's word for it. I don't trust him, for the reasons I stated above.

[binary visions]

so if 17 children being abused isn't enough, what's your threshold? <snip>
any demonstration of a pattern of abuse by an individual or a group should be met with the most severe punishment & subsequent restrictions upon the individuals or groups.<snip>
If one were to study any small group like that, any of a number of significant majorities could be found. For only 17 people, I am positive that you could find links between hair color, weight, number of traffic tickets... You could probably prove that drivers of Fords are 62.4% more likely to molest their kids if you wanted to.

I agree with your intolerance of child abuse and your heart is probably even in the right place in this case (I don't frequent the political boards, just poke my head in occasionally, so I have no idea of your other views on homosexuals). However, such a small sample size could demonstrate any number of patterns and that doesn't make any of them correct.

[ohio]

given the paltry state of the foster care system in most states, i'm first & foremost for the well-being of the children without respect to the sexual orientation of the adoptive home. however, i may be re-evaluating that stance after reading this (http://www.earnedmedia.org/fri0301.htm).

Most quoteworthy:let's dispense with "you gay-hater" & have a healthy debate on this topic, m-kay?

Hahahaaaa, I can't believe the debate got this far without recognizing the fundamental flaw in the original quote. It assumes that homosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in homosexual homes, and heterosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in heterosexual homes.

If stinkpot can dig up some more comprehensive data, I'll put an Andrew Jackson down that says a greater proportion of homosexual (which it shouldn't even be called...) assault occurs in traditional marriage adoptive homes than in same-sex adoptive homes.

you gay-hater.

[DRB]

Hahahaaaa, I can't believe the debate got this far without recognizing the fundamental flaw in the original quote. It assumes that homosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in homosexual homes, and heterosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in heterosexual homes.

If stinkpot can dig up some more comprehensive data, I'll put an Andrew Jackson down that says a greater proportion of homosexual (which it shouldn't even be called...) assault occurs in traditional marriage adoptive homes than in same-sex adoptive homes.

you gay-hater.

And there is your winner everyone.

[valve bouncer]

If one were to study any small group like that, any of a number of significant majorities could be found. For only 17 people, I am positive that you could find links between hair color, weight, number of traffic tickets... You could probably prove that drivers of Fords are 62.4% more likely to molest their kids if you wanted to.

.
Interesting........ 62.4 % is almost exactly half of the 31.5% of gays eating their children in the Romanian study I quoted. I think there's something in that for everybody, don't you?

[Toshi]

Hahahaaaa, I can't believe the debate got this far without recognizing the fundamental flaw in the original quote. It assumes that homosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in homosexual homes, and heterosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in heterosexual homes.

If stinkpot can dig up some more comprehensive data, I'll put an Andrew Jackson down that says a greater proportion of homosexual (which it shouldn't even be called...) assault occurs in traditional marriage adoptive homes than in same-sex adoptive homes.

you gay-hater.
good points. i don't have any real or fake :oink: stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. the point that ohio was alluding to in the second paragraph's parenthetical note was that child abuse is not a sexual thing (except for true pedophiles, who are a very slim minority) but rather are about power and control.

[valve bouncer]

stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. .
Make your point Toshi, but whatever you do, don't call Stinkle a homo....that's below the belt. ;) :D

[ohio]

good points. i don't have any real or fake :oink: stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. the point that ohio was alluding to in the second paragraph's parenthetical note was that child abuse is not a sexual thing (except for true pedophiles, who are a very slim minority) but rather are about power and control.

Actually my point was regardless of motivation for the assault (it may well be sexual for all I know), I'm willing to bet that the majority of the 34% of molestation that were "homosexual" (a man assaulting a boy, or a woman assaulting a girl), it is in a "heterosexual" home.

[$tinkle]

Hahahaaaa, I can't believe the debate got this far without recognizing the fundamental flaw in the original quote. It assumes that homosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in homosexual homes, and heterosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in heterosexual homes.

If stinkpot can dig up some more comprehensive data, I'll put an Andrew Jackson down that says a greater proportion of homosexual (which it shouldn't even be called...) assault occurs in traditional marriage adoptive homes than in same-sex adoptive homes.no, i'm sorry. you don't get to do that. you don't get to dismiss any possibilities for consideration by nit-picking the minutiae, then in the next breath make a totally baseless assertion. i don't care who's in your fan club.

i'll get my paypal account details to you to collect on those 4 fins i don't have any real or fake stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. all that means is there's a few more coming out parties to attendthe point that ohio was alluding to in the second paragraph's parenthetical note was that child abuse is not a sexual thing (except for true pedophiles, who are a very slim minority) but rather are about power and control.as are certain truths in cell block H at pelican bay, but open society???

[ALEXIS_DH]

isn't that just what you'll be doing next with your a-priori position of the FRI not "sounding like a very credible source"?


you perfectly know the lines of thought of those institutions in the US with the "family" word in their names..

just like doubting data from an "institute" called the "african panthers of the US" on issues relative to african americans, or "the flat earth foundation" on issues regarding astronomy....

i didnt made an a-priori judment. i raised a question, a doubt based on the (within reasonable doubt) biased name of the institution....

[$tinkle]

you perfectly know the lines of thought of those institutions in the US with the "family" word in their names..here're some more of "those institutions" websites:

http://www.365gay.com/people/Family/family.htm
http://www.gayfamilyoptions.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/co/GayFamilyValues/
http://gaylife.about.com/od/copingwgayfamily/
http://www.cbel.com/gay_family_and_relationships/
http://www.lathefamily.org/gayfamilies/dcd/

you were saying...

[ohio]

no, i'm sorry. you don't get to do that. you don't get to dismiss any possibilities for consideration by nit-picking the minutiae

You have just lost all credibility in any discussion of statistics or logic. There are books on both subjects; I suggest you spend some time with them. Since you have trouble with both, I'll lay out for you why it is not minutiae:

Let's look at your argument -

It is supported by these premises:

Premise 1: 34% of assaults on adopted children were of the same sex variety
Premise 2: The proportion of children adopted into same-sex homes is much lower than 34%... the closest thing I can get to a stat on this from your post is 17/(136+17) (~12%)
Premise 3: Only homosexuals commit same-sex assault, AND only heterosexuals commit different-sex assault

Conclusion: homosexual adopters commit sexual assault more often than heterosexual adopters.

So it is hardly minutiae to point out that if one of only 3 premises in your argument is wrong, then your argument is wrong. It has been shown time and time again, and written about ad nauseam that the vast majority of cases of sexual assault on children (same sex or different sex assault) were committed by heterosexual (though pedophilic) males. You will find similar volumes of work disproving a significant correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Therefore premise 3 is false.

That's without even discounting the data or the survey methods... we'll assume they're not.

If I thought it would help you pull your head out of your ass I might spend the time digging for some good scientific publishing... but I'm busy(ish) and I don't think you'd change your mind anyway.

[$tinkle]

You have just lost all credibility in any discussion of statistics or logic. There are books on both subjects; I suggest you spend some time with them. Since you have trouble with both, I'll lay out for you why it is not minutiae:from this assertion, i predict you'll put forth a fallible argument (i'm still allowing that i may be wrong, however)Let's look at your argument -

It is supported by these premises:

Premise 2: The proportion of children adopted into same-sex homes is much lower than 34%... the closest thing I can get to a stat on this from your post is 17/(136+17) (~12%)but, let's look at my response to Velocity Girl earlier in the thread:what's missing is the proportion of households that are gay/straight. if it's evenly split, then heteroes have some splainin' to do.

that data should have been there, & i didn't catch that til you pointed out your observation.not only did i observe the absence of pertinent data, i also offered a mea-culpa. kinda sucks when i point out my mistake before you can, but feel free to continue to amuse yourself
Conclusion: homosexual adopters commit sexual assault more often than heterosexual adopters.i haven't published a conclusion; i've been too busy with the paul cameron witch-hunt.

i'll readily admit that i'm unfamiliar (both personally & pedagogicially) with the motivations / behavioral characterstics behind pedophilia, but will not say that i spoke too soon, (but perhaps callously). silly me, i thought anything could actually be debated here w/o having to nearly go through sensitivity training. Silver kicks me in my christian nuts weekly, but i don't go home crying myself to sleep to veggie tales videos.

but I'm busy(ish) and I don't think you'd change your mind anyway.if i don't change my mind, then we are in agreeance, aye?

[Silver]

If you don't like the witch hunt, put forth a credible source next time. It's not really a witch hunt when the guy rides a broom and has a cauldron in his closet.

[ioscope]

I know a kid that it is working for. He is kind of an asshole, but he has a girlfreind!

[ohio]

from this assertion, i predict you'll put forth a fallible argument (i'm still allowing that i may be wrong, however)but, let's look at my response to Velocity Girl earlier in the thread:not only did i observe the absence of pertinent data, i also offered a mea-culpa. kinda sucks when i point out my mistake before you can, but feel free to continue to amuse yourself
i haven't published a conclusion; i've been too busy with the paul cameron witch-hunt.

i'll readily admit that i'm unfamiliar (both personally & pedagogicially) with the motivations / behavioral characterstics behind pedophilia, but will not say that i spoke too soon, (but perhaps callously). silly me, i thought anything could actually be debated here w/o having to nearly go through sensitivity training. Silver kicks me in my christian nuts weekly, but i don't go home crying myself to sleep to veggie tales videos.

if i don't change my mind, then we are in agreeance, aye?

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding. Are you congratulating yourself for recognizing a fundamental flaw, only after it was pointed out to you, in a piece of flop you posted in all seriousness? And even after recognizing the fundamental flaw continued to defend? Well, I can see how congratulations would be in order... :rolleyes:

Also, nice use of the word "fallible." Did you google for that one? You misused it, or at best misdirected it.

[Westy]

If you don't like the witch hunt, put forth a credible source next time. It's not really a witch hunt when the guy rides a broom and has a cauldron in his closet.

Not to mention if he weighs the same as a duck.

[Changleen]

Not to mention if he weighs the same as a duck. :love:

[$tinkle]

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding. Are you congratulating yourself for recognizing a fundamental flaw, only after it was pointed out to you, in a piece of flop you posted in all seriousness? And even after recognizing the fundamental flaw continued to defend? Well, I can see how congratulations would be in order... :rolleyes:you can't be justly accussed of not reading my post(s), but i can easily demonstrate you did not understand.

unlike you, i am a suppleminded empiricist, and demonstrated this attribute through debate - not snivelling. the fact there was essential missing data (proportions of same- & different-sex households) was first pointed out by me, & velocity girl was the catalyst. she gets the gold star.

it's no coincidence that very shortly after disclosure of this observation my tone changed, and i mulled the topic more broadly. if in doubt, please re-read & notice lack of "last edited by $tinkle" footers. it's rather telling of your rigid ideology that you continue to berate me even after i acknowledge my flawed assumption(s) about the data. do you have too much pride to do likewise when you err?Also, nice use of the word "fallible." Did you google for that one? You misused it, or at best misdirected it.i used fallible most precisely, as i demonstrated to you. pity if this does not even appear in your recognition vocabulary, as fallible is a common word (http://www.usingenglish.com/resources/wordcheck/index.php?t=group&id=379), and should be known in time to take the SAT or GMAT (http://www.usingenglish.com/resources/wordcheck/index.php?word=Fallible)

[Silver]

Have they redefined empiricist lately? Must have...