This Site's View on Same-Sex Marriage

[John Dibble]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

Another thing I don't have

LOL. I'm sure you have enough to get by. Well, it's late, I'm turning in. Have a nice night.

[Josh/Devilman88]

you too.

[John Dibble]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

Another thing I don't have

LOL. I'm sure you have enough to get by. Well, it's late, I'm turning in. Have a nice night.

One last thing before I turn in - simply by being active in the political process does show you have a lot more intelligence and common sense than most people. Half of the people in this country don't even vote. If more people were active in the political process(really digging into it, researching issues and candidates, being active, not just simply voting) I would think our government would be run a lot better than it is.

[Nym90]

Same-sex marriage. The right of two consenting adults to marry each other and only each other should be a fundamental human right.

[ijohn57s]

But you said, if they love each other they can get married. I'm just messing with you. But you see, If we let Gay people get married. Then people like that would wont it too. And before you know it there will be no marriage.

And, as I said, I don't think marriage is the government's business, so is this supposed to scare me?

But seriously, as I said, there is a much greater multitude of reasons(many of which are more logical and harder to argue against) to block incestuous relationships. I have serious doubts it will be a problem, and I doubt any judge would rule in favor of such a thing(especially at state supreme court and federal levels), and clearly no legislature would either.

Many years ago they thought the same thing with Gay marriages.

True. But incest is an entirely different animal.

So were Homosexuals

Arguing in circles won't do either of us any good. But you get my point - incest is not like homosexuality.

To me it is. They both are sick people. The both have problems up stairs. And they both in the eyes of God are wrong.

Well, that's a difference of opinion I suppose. Even if both are sicknesses, they are different sicknesses, and the law should treat them as such(one could argue that one is more harmful than the other). As far as God goes, got nothing against religion but law shouldn't be based on it.

I love reading your posts.

Thanks, I have fun writing them. Yours are fun to read too. I just don't understand why some people don't think debate is fun.

I don't understand that either. I may not convince you and you may not convince me of whatever we may be debating, but, I just enjoy doing it. When I took sociology, we would have an occasional debate in the class, and I loved it. My teacher (it was a junior college-- we called them teachers rather than professors) noticed that I always had an opinion about everything. Usually by the end of the debate the teacher, a couple of other students, and I would be the only ones debating. Everyone else just sat and watched. There were a couple of them that said they enjoyed listening though. Anyway, my point is, I love debating. It's a lot of fun.

[ragnar]

Nonetheless, perhaps some statistics would help. According to a January 1996 Developmental Psychology issue, children raised by homosexual couples are four times more likely to become gay themselves. In an Australian study done last year, children raised by both homosexuals and heteroseuxlas found that in nine out of thirteen of the categories (social additude and academics), heterosexuals did much better than homosexual-raised children. According to Journal of Social Service Research, 15% of new criminal problems today are caused by children raised by homosexual parenting. Finally, According to a University of Southern California study:

1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.


2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.


3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).


4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.


5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.


6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.



Clearly, it is damaging for the child to grow up with a missing parent.

But if we look at this more logically, we can understand how these problems are created. What is the main purpose of homosexual's lievs? Sexuality. In heterosexual relationships, the goal for sex is producing a family. However, homosexuals use sex for merely pleasure. How are children to react to this? They end up growing up with the idea that sex is for pleasure only. In addition, there are numerous health problems in homosexual relationships since homosexuals use body parts for reasons other than their purpose. It is a very unhealthy lifestyle for children to be apart of. Gay adoption is threatening children's psychological development.

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

[ijohn57s]

Eh, while I value being intelligent I prefer common sense any day of the week.

Another thing I don't have

LOL. I'm sure you have enough to get by. Well, it's late, I'm turning in. Have a nice night.

One last thing before I turn in - simply by being active in the political process does show you have a lot more intelligence and common sense than most people. Half of the people in this country don't even vote. If more people were active in the political process(really digging into it, researching issues and candidates, being active, not just simply voting) I would think our government would be run a lot better than it is.

I agree. It drives me crazy to think that some people don't even care to vote. But, what bothers me even more, is that some people vote without doing any research and having no understanding in the issues, and that they have the ability to cancel out my well-informed vote or your well-informed vote.

[John Dibble]

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

I'm wondering in what direction you changed it to - for or against?

[Bogart]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I said civil unions were acceptable. As long as we give them a civil union that includes all of the benefits of marriage, then the argument will be voided. After that then the only argument they can make is that it's discriminatory to not give them marriage, and they will lose on that front every time because the American people don't buy that crap.

Personally, I think ALL government recognized marriage should be civil unions, since in reality that is what they really are. I can see no logical reason to have a seperate term for same-sex relationships.

Exactly, the governmental function of any marriage is primarily that of a civil union.  The government should get out of validating a religious point of view.

[Bogart]

I'm not in "favor" of any of these options. we will either have marriage or civil unions, unions are better. The only reason gays want to be married is to force society as a whole to accept thier actions, making them feel better about themselves.

So, the various benefits bestowed by marriage, like being able to go into the hospital emergency room in the event of such an emergency, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

I can't go see my best friend in the hospital emergency room, and me and him are like brothers... But you don't see me trying to change the law so it will fit how I like it.

But, imagine it was your girlfriend and the state said you can't ever get married. You would never be allowed in unless she made you medical power of attorney.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was not written by me, which is why it's in bold. It was written either by the University of Southern California study, or by NARTH, who published the study.

Being more sexually active can be a problem, and what they're hinting is that at a young age children will have more sex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point isn't as much homosexual parenting directly causing specific psychological problems, but rather homosexual lifestyles can give children psychological problems because of their lives. Homosexuals are undoubtedly promiscuous even compared to unmarried normal couples, and this can be psychologically straining to the child, teaching him that marriage is not important. As I've shown in the past, 43% of caucasian homosexual men had 500 or more partners, and with 28% having over a thousand. Handbook of Family Diversity stated that gays who considered themselves monogomous (married) had 3-5 partners outside of marriage. As I've already said, anal sex among men causes many anal diseases, and can easily help the spread of AIDS and other STDs, according to the AIDS journal. It also reported that the dangerous sexual acts happen most often in supposedly "exclusive" relationships ("Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England"). In addition, "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men" from Archives of General Psychiatry reported that men and women with same-sex partners were 6 and a half more times over their twins to attempt suicide. Homosexuals are also more violent.

The truth is, homosexuality is a disorder, and them raising children is extremely unsafe.



April 2001, Volume 66, Number 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?

Judith Stacey
University of Southern California

Timothy J. Biblarz
University of Southern California

Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. The analysis here challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes how heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. The authors discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next they explorefindings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions. A less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework is proposed for investigating these issues. The framework focuses on (1) whether selection effects produced by homophobia account for associations between parental sexual orientations and child outcomes; (2) the role of parental gender vis-a-vis sexual orientation in influencing children's gender development; and (3) the relationship between parental sexual orientations and children's sexual preferences and behaviors.

American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 2, 3–25.

Source

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I believe that orphanages are much better than foster homes. In foster homes, the child constantly has new ideas of who his parent is, which is psychologically traumatizing. However, in an orphanage, the child has the workers to act as their parents- sure, there are few, but they still exist. The United States has had a negative additude about orphanages because of Charles Dicken's book Oliver Twist, but orphanages like those were rare in the United States, and today, they would be banned. I'm sure that the same-sex parents could raise children better than abusive parents, but nonetheless they place the children at risk since they have serious mental conditions. Childrens deserve the best; they shouldn't be put in such an awful position.

My views on homosexuality are scientific, from experience, and accurate. You may not like my views, but I don't see you providing any information on how homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Homosexuality is a disorder similar to pedophilia. It is completely unnatural for humans to fall in love with the same sex. It's contrary to morality; evolution; and psychological normacy. The only reason why homosexuality is considered an alternative sexuality is becuase of the APA reformation in 1971, where the APA board resigned and was replaced by pro-homosexual groups. The APA that once ardently spoke against homosexuality being normal changed to an extremely pro-homosexual organization in six months.

[Bogart]

I was hoping that the opponents of same-sex marriage would be able to offer something more than religious arguments against it. Even the statistics that were cited are really, as someone pointed out, hardly "problems."  Being opposed to same-sex marriage by saying, "I think it's wrong," " God says it's wrong," "Those people are sick," etc is really saying, "I am prepared to deprive a group of people of a liberty that others have based upon my personal view." There is nothing wrong with one's personal point of view, but it's a weak argument. The biggest moron can stand up and cross his arms and say, "Well, that's my view and I'm not budging."

I also wanted to say that, while my state is blue, this is primarily for fiscal reasons. As for many social issues, such as this one, I don't agree with Republican policy. I think that the party has allowed a minority to dominate on these types of issues for far too long. We are losing a lot of support to the Democrats as a result. There are many, many conservative Democrats who love the fiscal angle but can't stand the religious extremism that permeates the GOP as well as many moderate Republicans. These views are keeping the GOP from winning a lot more elections.

[Brambila]

Um.. I havn't mentioned anything religious or merely saying "I think it's wrong". First of all, I wouldn't say "I think", I would say, "I know", and "you all are brainwashed by the american media and public school systems".

[John Dibble]

Um.. I havn't mentioned anything religious or merely saying "I think it's wrong". First of all, I wouldn't say "I think", I would say, "I know", and "you all are brainwashed by the american media and public school systems".

Brainwashed? Are you so sure YOU aren't the brainwashed one? Claiming that we are brainwashed and that you 'know' are right does not give you much credibility. It makes you sound like an arrogant, howling moonbat.

By the way, that abstract you posted last didn't give squat for information. Also, never said orphanages were bad(the days of Oliver Twist are over, after all), I just think a set of loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation, is superior to living in an institution.

[Brambila]

John, that statement about brainwashing was somewhat of a joke.

And you obviously did not read my post if you claim that it gave you no information. Two parents can provide love, but they cannot fulfill the love required for raising a child. I think that orphanages are much better than being raised by homosexuals, as in orphanages they can have mother and father figures, where in homosexual adoption they have two parents of the same sex.

[John Dibble]

I did read your post. Being in an orphanage does not gaurantee both mother and father figures(child care workers are most often female, and as such there are fewer male workers in orphanages, so many orphanages may not have male workers to provide father figures).

As to providing evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder, you won't listen because most of the evidence I can find is from the APA that you so demonize, so why bother(but, to do it anyways, here you go http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html, and at the bottom there is a link to abstracts for the empiracal studies used). Also, since you mentioned that previous research you posted in a different post, I'll also mention I called into question the research methods of that study, as I do not think it was empiracal.

You also say that homosexual parents can provide love, but not provide the love required for raising a child. Can you even prove this? Can you prove that two people, merely because they are gay, are incapable of providing the love a child needs?

[Brambila]

I don't trust the APA at all. I've been involved with them all my life, skimmed through several of their books (my father is a psychologist, so we have quite a diverse collection of books on psychology). They are very corrupt and literally are run by homosexuals. In fact, many people become psychologists in an attempt to solve their own psychological problems.

Because the love the child needs comes from two parents; the father and the mother. The love the mother provides is different than what the father provides because of hormonal and sexual differences. If, for instance, you had two mothers, they're both going to be very sympathetic towards the child instead of disciplining him, so the child ends up getting away with wrongdoings. Meanwhile, if a child is raised by two fathers, he is constantly disciplined, and so fears taking risks on account of punishment. The list goes on.

[John Dibble]

I don't trust the APA at all. I've been involved with them all my life, skimmed through several of their books (my father is a psychologist, so we have quite a diverse collection of books on psychology). They are very corrupt and literally are run by homosexuals. In fact, many people become psychologists in an attempt to solve their own psychological problems.

Because the love the child needs comes from two parents; the father and the mother. The love the mother provides is different than what the father provides because of hormonal and sexual differences. If, for instance, you had two mothers, they're both going to be very sympathetic towards the child instead of disciplining him, so the child ends up getting away with wrongdoings. Meanwhile, if a child is raised by two fathers, he is constantly disciplined, and so fears taking risks on account of punishment. The list goes on.

You can have your fears about the APA if you wish. I don't trust any organization completely(including the Libertarian Party), but I think your mistrust goes beyond what is healthy, but do as you wish.

Anyways, your claims about discipline are entirely unfounded. Mothers can discipline and fathers can nurture. When my father died when I was 10, my mother was the one who raised me, oh, and guess what, I was punished for my wrongdoings. When my mother married again, my stepfather had no say in how I was raised and punished. I ended up fine, and I don't do bad things to people, I don't steal, I don't cheat, ect. In other words, my mother was perfectly capable of punishing me. You assume that the sexes are incapable of changing their parenting style to the situation. You also don't take into account that gays are often at least a little more feminine, and lesbians are often a little more masculine(I'm not talking about the extreme stereotypes though, I believe I read somewhere those constitute only about 15-20% of the actual homosexaul population), so the discipline system would be a little more evened out as compared to if the child was raised by two same sex heterosexual parents. You also did not prove that they are incapable of providing the love that a child needs(and children, especially infants, need loving care to survive. Infants can actually die if they don't get enough contact.).

[Bogart]

First, gay relationships look very much like straight ones.

40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
K Jay-1977 Gay Repor t, Summit Books
L Peplau-1981, Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada- 1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "The Older Lesbian"
C Silverstein- 1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%, married heterosexuals=4% Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.

Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales
M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy- 1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35
(see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).

Second, children are not adversely affected through being raised by gay parents.

Gay/lesbian parents report no greater stress than heterosexuals, and children are not adversely affected by being raised by homosexual families
K McNiell-1998, Psychological Reports 82:59-62
A Brewaeys-1997, Human Reproduction 12:1349-59
A Brewaeys-1997, J of Psychosomatic Obs and Gyn 18:1-16
C Pattersm-1992, Child Development 63:1025-42
S Golombok-1983, J of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 24:551-572
K Lewis-1980, Social Work 25:198-203
R Green 1986, Archives of Sexual Behavior 15:167-184
R Green-1982, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 10:7-15
M Alien-1996, J of Homosexuality, 32(2):19-35
J Miller-1981, J of Homosexuality, 7(1):49-56
M Kirkpatrick- 1981, Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:545-551
M Kirkpatrick- 1987, J of Homosexuality 14:201-11
F Tasker-1995, Am J of Orthopsychiatry 65:203-15
D Kleber-1986, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 14(1):81-87
B Hoeffer-1981, Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:536-44

Thirdly, gays are not more promiscuous that non-gays as studies like the famous Bell/Weinberg study suggest.


One study which appears to support the idea that homosexuals are highly promiscuous was published by Bell and Weinberg, and is often cited by the Christian Right, and even some secular sources. However, their data is highly suspicious, and cannot be generalized to the entire homosexual population. Because of their methodology, their data is valuable only as a case study for the sample they studied, but it is not by any means representative of the general gay population. for my specific critique of this study, and why their statistics on gay promiscuity are so bizarrely high. Bell and Weinberg. Homosexualities : A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York, 1978 a. The sampling of the homosexuals in the study was not random, and they admit as much. The heterosexual sample was random, using census data and land tracts to ensure a random sample, and going to exhaustive lengths to make sure those samples were truly random. While they did go to great lengths to get a large sample group of homosexuals, and I don't doubt that their data is representative of the sample they were testing, their data is absolutely not generalizable due to the clear fact that their sample was not a random sample. b. Another reason why their data is not generalizable is that they while they did a survey of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, for some reason they didn't include the heterosexual data. For example, while they claim that one homosexual respondent claims to have had.sex with over 10,000 people, and a large percentage of their sample claim to have had sex with over 500 people, they do not give correlative data on the heterosexual sample. For all we know the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group. It is possible that the heterosexual statistics were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays, but of the sexually active single person in San Francisco in the 1970's. c. A third problem, still relating to the heterosexual sample, is that it did not represent a true control group. Apart from the fact that the homosexual sample was not random and the heterosexual sample was, the homosexual samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%).The heterosexual sample, on the other hand, were people in residential areas, admittedly including married people. These two samples are not parallel, and even if they had included the heterosexual data, they would not be comparable. In order for this data to have been generalizable, they would have had to go to heterosexual singles bars, sex clubs, bookstores, etc, to get their population. d. They used Kinsey 2-6 for their inclusion of homosexual population. Their sample does not represent only homosexual persons, but also includes bisexual persons.

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay men, 35.9°/ had one male partner in their lifetime, 45.8% had 2-4 male partners, 7.9% had 5-9 male partners, and 10.3% had 10 or more sexual partners. The mean of this is 4.2 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=77 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sale of n-3224 males, 2.33% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men have had a significantly lower number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.
J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60 R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348

In another set of studies, the first (n=2664) showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. In fact, the authors of this paper report that "homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate" given the data in the table below, which compares their data to a second, parallel study of only heterosexual men (n=1235, age=18-4.9 yrs). The table indicates the percentage of men having the given number of sexual partners in the previous year [top row: Binson; bottom row: Dolcini]: Orientation
 no partners
 1 partner
 2+ partners
 
gay
 24 %
 41 °/a
 35
 
straight
 8 %
 80 %
 12
 
D Binson-1995: Journal of Sex Research 32: 245-54. M Dolcini-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25: 208-14.

Fourth, gays are not more likely to molest children.


In a random sample of 175 child sex offenders 76% report having exclusive adult heterosexual behavior, and 24% report having adult bisexual behavior. The sexual attraction towards children is a pathology unrelated to sexual orientation.
A Groth-1978, Archives of Sexual Behavior 7(3): 175-181

In a second study of 1206 convictions for child molesters in New Jersey, 80.7% were heterosexual acts and 19.3% were homosexual acts.
E Revitch-1962, Diseases of the Nervous System 23:73-78

In a third study, 47% of males convicted of sexual abuse against male children were in an heterosexual marriage.
P Gebhard-1965, Sex Offenders, New York: Harper and Row

In a fourth study in Great Britain, in a review of 200 sexual assaults on boys, only 32 of the perpetrators were homosexuals.
J McGeorge-1964, Medicine, Science and the Law 4!245-53

In a fifth study of 148 offenders who sexually assaulted under-age persons in Massachusetts, 71 (51%) selected only female children, 42 (28%) selected male children, and 31 (21%) assaulted both male and female children. Moreover, the authors report that "offenders attracted to boy victims typically report that they are uninterested in or revulsed by adult homosexual relationships and find the young boy's feminine characteristics ... appealing" (p. 20). They found that of those pedophiles that were attracted to both children and adults (51%), 83% were exclusively heterosexuals, and 17% were bisexual. A Groth-1978, LAE Journal (Lambda Alpha Epsilon American Criminal Justice Association) 41 (1): 17-22 1. In yet another study at the Children's Hospital in San Diego, of the 140 boys presenting with sexual abuse, only 4% of the assaults were by homosexuals.
M Spencer-1986, Pediatrics 78 (1):133-138

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't trust the APA at all. I've been involved with them all my life, skimmed through several of their books (my father is a psychologist, so we have quite a diverse collection of books on psychology). They are very corrupt and literally are run by homosexuals. In fact, many people become psychologists in an attempt to solve their own psychological problems.

Because the love the child needs comes from two parents; the father and the mother. The love the mother provides is different than what the father provides because of hormonal and sexual differences. If, for instance, you had two mothers, they're both going to be very sympathetic towards the child instead of disciplining him, so the child ends up getting away with wrongdoings. Meanwhile, if a child is raised by two fathers, he is constantly disciplined, and so fears taking risks on account of punishment. The list goes on.

So know you're saying all women are sympathetic and linient, and all males are tough and disciplied.  I know many people who parents are opposite, I know many whose parents are both one or the other.  

[angus]

I don't trust the APA at all. I've been involved with them all my life, skimmed through several of their books (my father is a psychologist, so we have quite a diverse collection of books on psychology). They are very corrupt and literally are run by homosexuals. In fact, many people become psychologists in an attempt to solve their own psychological problems.

Because the love the child needs comes from two parents; the father and the mother. The love the mother provides is different than what the father provides because of hormonal and sexual differences. If, for instance, you had two mothers, they're both going to be very sympathetic towards the child instead of disciplining him, so the child ends up getting away with wrongdoings. Meanwhile, if a child is raised by two fathers, he is constantly disciplined, and so fears taking risks on account of punishment. The list goes on.

So know you're saying all women are sympathetic and linient, and all males are tough and disciplied.  I know many people who parents are opposite, I know many whose parents are both one or the other.  

I was just thinking the same thing.  My mother was much stricter than my dad.  And already I can tell my wife will be the disciplinarian in my family.  In fact, I still remember how to say "No!" in daddy-dialect:  "Go ask your mother."

[John Dibble]

bogart - that was great, thanks for the backup

HockeyDude, angus - glad you agree with me.

[ragnar]

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

I'm wondering in what direction you changed it to - for or against?

for.

Before I was for same-sex marriage, but against same-sex couple rear a child, because of the psychological effect on the child, but if BRAMBILA could not find anything worse, than these information...

[John Dibble]

I want to thank Brambila, for changing my view on gay adoption

I'm wondering in what direction you changed it to - for or against?

for.

Before I was for same-sex marriage, but against same-sex couple rear a child, because of the psychological effect on the child, but if BRAMBILA could not find anything worse, than these information...

Ok, I figured as much, just making sure.

[Brambila]

Let's look at your sources:

Invalid, biased sources.

Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles; Gay Report (That's a magazine-- not a psychological journal!); The Male Couple; Man to Man: Gay Couples in America;

Valid Jorunals:

Journal of Homosexuality (At least psychologists take these); Journal of Sex Research (Very good one, but I'm afraid what they stated doesn't help your point very well) the journal also reported that of homosexuals the "model range for number of sexual partners ever was 101-500", and when they found that of male pedophiles 199 were girls and 96 were boys, they said "This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children", even though homosexuals make up only 3%-6% of the population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with these studies is that it is impossible to get an accurate representation because of the small number of children raised by homosexuals who are over the age of 15 now. Even today, there are only 200 thousand gay families that have adopted children.  These studies (fourteen of them) were reviewed by Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, and they found that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base." Further, most of these studies cannot be done as the size of lesbian/gay raised children is far too small of a proportion to survey on. Developmental Psychology reported "Patterson's (1992) review found little evidence that children of gay and lesbian parents were atypical with respect to either gender identity or sex-typed behavior although available studies were insufficiently large to generate much statistical power," (Hence, at the time, there were not enough survey samples to be used in any study). Child Psychiatry and Human Development said that "the numbers are too small in this study to draw any conclusions." Even Journal of Homosexuality, one of your sources, states that "Those who do study gay fathers may be frustrated by the difficulties of obtaining valid and adequate sample sizes," and because of this "what is known currently about gay fathers is weakened by these methodological problems." They further stated that "It is practically impossible to obtain a representative sample of gay fathers, and those studies published to date frequently utilize groups of white, urban, well-educated males for study because of convenience sampling."

What's interesting about your studies done by Journal of Sex Research is contradictory with yours, with mine saying "model range for number of sexual partners ever was 101-500". Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times reported that only a few relationships last over two years, "with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

I don't know why you've brought up pedophilia, but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing that homosexuals only compramise 3%-6% of the population, the fact that 20% of pedophile acts are done by homosexuals makes homosexuals four times more likely to sexually molest children. Your other study, Archives of Sexual Behavior, did a study saying that 25% of pedophiles are homosexual, or 41% including those who molest both sexes. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa said that there's a 2:1 ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles, and Child Abuse and Neglect stated that 42% of male pedophiles had homosexual molestations. The rest of your studies show that homosexual molesters are at least 16% and up to 41% of the pedophile population. Yes, most pedophiles are heterosexual, but homosexuals only make up 3%-6% of the population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not exactly; I was showing an example. My point was that there's nothing you can do to change the hormonal and sexual factors of men and women. Men and women are different. Two women don't make a man.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What information are you talking about? You mean my arguments?