Why Gay Parents May Be The Best Parents

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1326863467' post='2370911']
Well, this went downhill fast. Good job, gentlemen.
[/quote]concurrence

I blame hassy's hormones

[MissyP89]

Men have the hormones, too.

[ardillacid]

Falso, men are robots. De facto

[MissyP89]

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tb0lPrx995U/TKP7GgPORkI/AAAAAAAAA-4/MGtgEr7GgtY/s1600/tin-man.jpg[/img]

[4588686]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1326863539' post='2370912']
concurrence

I blame hassy's hormones
[/quote]


That and the fact that I the dinner for two I have out on the table was warm about four hours when you were supposed to be home RATHER THAN flooping THAT silly sally YOU MET ON FACEBOOK ALL NIGHT WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE ASKING WHERE DADDY IS.

[ardillacid]

Tiger don't change his stripes

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1326868966' post='2370936']
Tiger don't change his stripes
[/quote][img]http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/08/tiger-woods-dui.jpg[/img]

[kujo]

I will never understand why Catholics, and other Christians, have this opposition to two loving, committed gay men or lesbian women wanting to adopt and care for a child without a home or a family. I understand the moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle--I certainly don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you'd think that that sort of belief would fall somewhere short of trying to solve one of the most persistent problems in our society. The adoption system is so screwed that an exhaustive explanation is redundant. It seems, to me, that applying a moral litmus to prospective parents is just plain dumb.

But hey, maybe that's because I'm the "phishy" type.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1326870510' post='2370951']
I will never understand why Catholics, and other Christians, have this opposition to two loving, committed gay men or lesbian women wanting to adopt and care for a child without a home or a family. I understand the moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle--I certainly don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you'd think that that sort of belief would fall somewhere short of trying to solve one of the most persistent problems in our society. The adoption system is so screwed that an exhaustive explanation is redundant. It seems, to me, that applying a moral litmus to prospective parents is just plain dumb.

But hey, maybe that's because I'm the "phishy" type.
[/quote]

Part of the reason why the Catholic Church has a problem with placing children in homes with homosexual parents is precisely that the Church holds that homosexual acts are intrinsically dis-ordered (as in, not "ordered" toward the Good), and thus are evil. The adoption system already applies moral litmus tests for prospective parents. The Church can't justify teaching that certain actions are intrinsically disordered, and then go place a child in a home with hommosexual parents, becuase that would be like saying "Oh, yes, we think what you're doing is evil, but it's totally okay with us if you teach this child that it's actually a good thing."

Do you see what I mean? And yeah, I agree that the adoption and foster care systems are messed up in America. But letting gay couples adopt isn't going to solve that problem.

[EmilyAnn]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"[color=#000000]Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident" [/color][/font][/size]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]Really? I never would have guessed that on my own. [/color][/font][/size]

[Papist]

[quote name='[size=1]Hasan[/size]' timestamp='1326857405' post='2370867']
That's not a research flaw. That's called a hypothesis.

No, I guess it's like that fraud Einstein. That charlatan believed that if his theory of relativity was correct then there would be an observable bend in the light during the eclipse. HE HELD THIS BELIEVED OUTCOME BEFORE THE DATA WAS COLLECTED AND THEN THE EXPERIMENT PROVED HIS GUESS CORRECT??????? HOW CONVENIENT!!!!


FRAUD!


[size=3]FRAUD, I SAY!!![/size]
[/quote]

Einstein followed the data. He did not advocate his thoughts to be true until the data was it. And he shared his data.

[BG45]

Hassan, thank you, you just made a guy writing his dissertation next to me laugh. All inquiry is important, because even our failures do show us something. Bias however, is everywhere. I've also had it hammered into me that replication of past studies is important, at least until I wanted to replicate one.

J_lol, gotcha!

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326859561' post='2370886']
Okay, some humans are liars and some scientists svck at their job, no problem there. But that's not actually evidence that there is something fraudulent or erroneous about the research in question; it's just an insinuation without value.

Claiming that the researchers had a guess as to the outcome of the research before carrying it out does not establish Stapel-style misconduct. Where is the evidence commensurate with your accusation?

P.S. Could you actually share the exact study or studies that you have in mind here? Just so there is no confusion. Thanks.

ETA: P.P.S. I've only read the yahoo page and will confess that my bias is against that article which struck me as pretty ridiculous. I'm only taking issue with the Stapel insinuation right now.
[/quote]


Maybe I should have added that I am only referring to the field of human behavior[e.g. psychology, sociology]. Fields such as biology and physics are more trustworthy in their research. I am not and meant not to discredit research and researchers as a whole, but rather to not just take their word for it. Anyone can write an article and say, studies who this and studies show that. I know people that take studies like this and without scrutiny will change their behavior. A lot of publications have retracted studies associated with Stapel’s data. However,

Ads can affect whether and how consumers think about the self
Coffee as a cause of pancreatic cancer
Type A personality causing heart attacks
Breakfast cereal consumption increasing the odds that a woman will give birth to a boy
Scientists discriminated more if their labs were messy
Claimed meat was behind all the human aggression
We use better manners if a wine glass is on the dinner table

Seems that the more amazing the claim, the better, especially when dealing with sociological human behavior.

[Papist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1326870510' post='2370951']
I will never understand why Catholics, and other Christians, have this opposition to two loving, committed gay men or lesbian women wanting to adopt and care for a child without a home or a family. I understand the moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle--I certainly don't agree with it, but I understand it. But you'd think that that sort of belief would fall somewhere short of trying to solve one of the most persistent problems in our society. The adoption system is so screwed that an exhaustive explanation is redundant. It seems, to me, that applying a moral litmus to prospective parents is just plain dumb.

But hey, maybe that's because I'm the "phishy" type.
[/quote]

[quote]As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html[/url]

Should health[physical & mental] be a factor? [url="http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690"]http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690[/url]

[kujo]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1326882052' post='2370966']
Part of the reason why the Catholic Church has a problem with placing children in homes with homosexual parents is precisely that the Church holds that homosexual acts are intrinsically dis-ordered (as in, not "ordered" toward the Good), and thus are evil. The adoption system already applies moral litmus tests for prospective parents. The Church can't justify teaching that certain actions are intrinsically disordered, and then go place a child in a home with hommosexual parents, becuase that would be like saying "Oh, yes, we think what you're doing is evil, but it's totally okay with us if you teach this child that it's actually a good thing."

Do you see what I mean? And yeah, I agree that the adoption and foster care systems are messed up in America. But letting gay couples adopt isn't going to solve that problem.
[/quote]

I appreciate the response. And yes, I am fully aware of the Church's position on this matter--I am, in truth, quite the knowledgeable Roman Catholic, whose beliefs on homosexuality only seem to get me designated as "phishy"--as is in, not ENTIRELY Catholic-- on Phatmass. I recognize the source of the beliefs, but I just don't agree with them. In any case, as I said, I appreciate the response.

[Amppax]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1326845712' post='2370701']
I should add, that was pretty much every assignment I had in one class last semester. "Tear apart this study, show me how they're lying."
[/quote]

We got extra credit in my AP class for doing that. It was a lot of fun.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1326897391' post='2370996']
I appreciate the response. And yes, I am fully aware of the Church's position on this matter--I am, in truth, quite the knowledgeable Roman Catholic, whose beliefs on homosexuality only seem to get me designated as "phishy"--as is in, not ENTIRELY Catholic-- on Phatmass. I recognize the source of the beliefs, but I just don't agree with them. In any case, as I said, I appreciate the response.
[/quote]

No problem.

[tinytherese]

Do I even want to know how someone with same sex attraction "accidentally conceives" a child? The only situations I can think of are if they were drunk enough to sleep with someone of the opposite sex or they don't act on their same sex attraction but date someone of the opposite sex and sleep with them.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326894378' post='2370984']
Maybe I should have added that I am only referring to the field of human behavior[e.g. psychology, sociology]. Fields such as biology and physics are more trustworthy in their research. I am not and meant not to discredit research and researchers as a whole, but rather to not just take their word for it. Anyone can write an article and say, studies who this and studies show that. I know people that take studies like this and without scrutiny will change their behavior. A lot of publications have retracted studies associated with Stapel’s data. However,

Ads can affect whether and how consumers think about the self
Coffee as a cause of pancreatic cancer
Type A personality causing heart attacks
Breakfast cereal consumption increasing the odds that a woman will give birth to a boy
Scientists discriminated more if their labs were messy
Claimed meat was behind all the human aggression
We use better manners if a wine glass is on the dinner table

Seems that the more amazing the claim, the better, especially when dealing with sociological human behavior.
[/quote]
Oh okay, I understand. Thanks for clarifying. :-D

[BG45]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326901103' post='2371012']
We got extra credit in my AP class for doing that. It was a lot of fun.
[/quote]

It can be, and it doesn't have to be malicious, it can totally be an accident.

A lot of the studies I were assigned looked great, and then after an hour you hit the point where you go "Oh wow, they didn't do X when they should have" and you realize it probably wasn't intentional...unless it's totally blatant. One guy, I forget what he had, but the article outright stated there were no conflicting loyalties by the researcher that could be called into question. Then under the funding section, he was bankrolled entirely by the group that funded him. People fund you when they have an agenda, and you have to wonder, did he mis-represent himself as having no conflicting interests, or did he find what they wanted found?

My favorite example of all rhetoric being falsified to an extent is the 100,000 missing sex offenders. There are 100,000 estimated people who have gone "missing" from national sex offender registries. However, that number starts becoming way more nebulous the more you look at it.
A few examples:
1) People move and do update their information, but one registry not run by a government agency might list them still at an old address. Suddenly we have a missing sex offender.
2) People die, but they're still on a registry perhaps (it happens a lot). Another missing sex offender.
3) People aren't on the registry for a lifetime and get taken off some, but not others. Another missing sex offender.
4) And of course, the scary category, the genuinely missing sex offenders.

Which, it's not that it's maliciously false. It's just that it's not entirely true...