SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[Jingthing]

There are many loveless marriages. People get and stay married for many reasons. Not necessarily love. 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

Obviously gay men and women can not "produce their own offspring".  Gay men can adopt children or use surrogacy (illegal in many countries due to the harrowing experience for the mother) and gay women can use a man's sperm (only half their offspring then). But I take your point, some gays raise children.

 

Now unfortunately academics have shown that compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to;

 

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely) 
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

 

As the author of that study, Professor Mark Regnerus from the University of Austin says: "The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well".

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610?via%3Dihub

 

So first of all the number of gay parents who raise children is miniscule, so small in fact as to have no impact and it can be disregarded. However, when that does happen, the above adverse consequences are likely.

 

Is that really something we should encourage?

I can assure you that the research you have cited has been at the very least been questioned and in some cases disagreed with totally . These studies are more recent than the 2012 study you are presenting as inconclusive fact, which it is not.

 

Please keep an open mind an look at other sources which may not necessarily agree with your preferred bias. That is what research is about, recognising ones own bias, as seeking  all viewpoints to come to an informed deision;, which may vary from your original opinion.

 

we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adoptive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27620690/

 

Conclusion: Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27035692/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27035692/

 

The study’s conclusions did appear to deflect many of these fears/negative outcomes: (1) children of lesbian

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/06/03/same-sex-marriage-and-parenting-four-big-myths-debunked/

develop patterns of gender-role behavior commensurate with that of other children (no data are available regarding gender-role behavior for children of gay fathers); (2) children of lesbian or gay parents do not exhibit elevated levels of homosexuality, nor (3) major deficits in personal development. Hence, the APA unequivocally concluded that, in their review and collation of data from 59 gay-parenting studies: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”²⁴

^{https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/06/03/same-sex-marriage-and-parenting-four-big-myths-debuned/k}

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Jingthing]

About outcomes either way, they are irrelevant. 

Marriage equality is about civil rights. 

LGBT people and their children do face challenges in societies due to homophobia. 

But we don't say a particular ethnic group isn't allowed to marry because as a group they have poorer outcomes. Such as black people in the US subject to structural racism. 

 

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Thats a hypothetical question neither of us can answer, but Im sure they know attraction based on natural stimulans as we also do get stimulated by. 

Of course mammals know attraction, however, there is no evidence at all that they feel romantic love as humans know it.

 

So you can make an argument that mammals in the animal kingdom love same sex partners, but it would be wholly devoid of any credible evidence. 

 

The evidence would indicate that mammals do engage in homosexual acts but there is no evicence they feel love as humans do, and do not have a love fixation on same sex partners. 

 

No evidence animals can feel love, as opposed to care or lust.

 

I stress that I only reply on these interesting animal matters because someone wanted to make the argument that homosexual love is natural in the animal kingdom. It is not of course. Nor would it affect the issue at hand, whether gay marriage is of benefit to the country as a whole. Again no compelling arguments made this benefits the country as a whole.

 

 

[Tagged]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

. Again no compelling arguments made this benefits the country as a whole.

 

 

You forget the society is there for us, or should be there for each and one of us,  so one and each of us can be the best of our self to contribute to the society. I do not see any advantages to lock some groups outside the society at all. Angood example is the status que of USA! A diversed democratic western country, on its knees at the moment! Anyone aggree on that statement?

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I can assure you that the research you have cited has been at the very least been questioned and in some cases disagreed with totally . These studies are more recent than the 2012 study you are presenting as inconclusive fact, which it is not.

 

^{Please keep an open mind when citing research that often there are other well researched opinions and later ones which may not agree with your source}

 

we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adoptive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially families with gay fathers and with lower income.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27620690/

 

Conclusion: Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27035692/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27035692/

 

The study’s conclusions did appear to deflect many of these fears/negative outcomes: (1) children of lesbian

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/06/03/same-sex-marriage-and-parenting-four-big-myths-debunked/

develop patterns of gender-role behavior commensurate with that of other children (no data are available regarding gender-role behavior for children of gay fathers); (2) children of lesbian or gay parents do not exhibit elevated levels of homosexuality, nor (3) major deficits in personal development. Hence, the APA unequivocally concluded that, in their review and collation of data from 59 gay-parenting studies: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”²⁴

^{https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/06/03/same-sex-marriage-and-parenting-four-big-myths-debuned/k}

 

 

 

 

 

I know, and that in and of itself is no surprise, given that there are gay academics in the social sciences and gay activists. Of course they would disagree with that study from Professor Regnerus, and would try any avenue to attack its findings. Indeed the gay social scientist Gary Gates has led a campaign against Regnerus where he attacked everything from Regnerus integrity to his intellectual merit.

 

As a result the entire review process of the journal where Regnerus published his study came under sharp review, and nothing remarkable was found whatsoever. In the end the main criticism of the study was very minimal and centred on the issue if someone really was homosexual because that person both had same sex and heterosexual relationships.

 

In fact, 27 scholars signed a letter in defence of Professor Regenerus' study where they say the criticism of Regnerus' study is misguided.

 

The public and academic reaction to Regnerus's research has been referred to as a "witch hunt" by his former mentor Christian Smith. Smith said that "The push-back" to Regnerus's article "is coming simply because some people don't like where the data led."

 

That study has not been retracted, its author stands by what he said, what the study found, and none of the journals it was published in has retracted the study and its peer review policy was found to be impeccable.

 

Now of course there are studies that say the opposite, as is almost always the case with any scientific issue. 

 

However, the fact that a Professor at Austin University found in a study that these serious adverse consequences existed for children raised in same sex families also needs to be considered.

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

You forget the society is there for us, or should be there for each and one of us,  so one and each of us can be the best of our self to contribute to the society. I do not see any advantages to lock some groups outside the society at all. Angood example is the status que of USA! A diversed democratic western country, on its knees at the moment! Anyone aggree on that statement?

I agree with that. 

 

And I don't think homosexuals should be locked outside society. They are not of course, they are celebrated, or rather celebrate themselves quite openly. And so they should. It is absolutely right that society engages in as many experiments as possible to discover what is the best way to live.

 

Society is there for you, for any homosexual, you use its schools, hospitals, pensions, roads, theatres, you can contribute and live your best life as a homosexual and many contributions of homosexuals have been astounding and vastly more important than contributing children or taxpayers.

 

That is the best way for homosexuals to contribute to society, through their particular talents, not through children or marriage.

 

I still do not see any benefit for the country as a whole of gay marriage, but a considerable cost to legalising gay marriage.

 

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I know, and that in and of itself is no surprise, given that there are gay academics in the social sciences and gay activists. Of course they would disagree with that study from Professor Regnerus, and would try any avenue to attack its findings. Indeed the gay social scientist Gary Gates has led a campaign against Regnerus where he attacked everything from Regnerus integrity to his intellectual merit.

 

As a result the entire review process of the journal where Regnerus published his study came under sharp review, and nothing remarkable was found whatsoever. In the end the main criticism of the study was very minimal and centred on the issue if someone really was homosexual because that person both had same sex and heterosexual relationships.

 

In fact, 27 scholars signed a letter in defence of Professor Regenerus' study where they say the criticism of Regnerus' study is misguided.

 

The public and academic reaction to Regnerus's research has been referred to as a "witch hunt" by his former mentor Christian Smith. Smith said that "The push-back" to Regnerus's article "is coming simply because some people don't like where the data led."

 

That study has not been retracted, its author stands by what he said, what the study found, and none of the journals it was published in has retracted the study and its peer review policy was found to be impeccable.

 

Now of course there are studies that say the opposite, as is almost always the case with any scientific issue. 

 

However, the fact that a Professor at Austin University found in a study that these serious adverse consequences existed for children raised in same sex families also needs to be considered.

I think some  mammals can have similar emotions to love that humans do. You can see that with mother animals and their offspring, and easy to see how birds such as parrots, swans etc, pair bond for life, get jealous and angry over their mates, and defend them from others....much like you

show a strong desire to defend your Texas Christian professor and his Sacred work at all costs. Maybe you can marry your precious Regnerus and get over your outdated, small-minded and nasty views.

 

 

I would hate to be a child raised by you if they were gay or lesbian and you told them they had to give up their children as they were not fit to parent as they were gay. 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by jak2002003

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I agree with that. 

 

And I don't think homosexuals should be locked outside society. They are not of course, they are celebrated, or rather celebrate themselves quite openly. And so they should. It is absolutely right that society engages in as many experiments as possible to discover what is the best way to live.

 

Society is there for you, for any homosexual, you use its schools, hospitals, pensions, roads, theatres, you can contribute and live your best life as a homosexual and many contributions of homosexuals have been astounding and vastly more important than contributing children or taxpayers.

 

That is the best way for homosexuals to contribute to society, through their particular talents, not through children or marriage.

 

I still do not see any benefit for the country as a whole of gay marriage, but a considerable cost to legalising gay marriage.

 

And what right do you have to decided who can and can not marry and have kids? 

[Donutz]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Kindly point to the flaws and contradictions.

 

Among human beings it is natural to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex.

 

It is not natural for human beings to fall in love with members of the same sex. In fact for the longest time this was considered an aberration, unnatural and indeed a mental illness. It was only in 1973 that homosexuality was removed by the APA from the register of recognized mental illnesses.

 

So your argument that homosexual love is natural does not fly. Not in the animal world and not in the human world.

 

This is not a contradiction, you are just having trouble in seeing what is natural and what is not.

 

It is not laughable that gay marriage costs taxpayers millions, that is demonstrated fact.

(...)

You sat it's natural for heterosexuals to fall in love,  but not for homosexuals and animals can't fall in love... based on? Those hetro people must be very special if no other type of human or animal has the ability to fall in love.. I'm not buying it.

 

As for taxes etc. Plenty of other 'less productive' groups out there based on class, handicap , IQ, and what else not. Guess we should cut all the weaker people out and deny them any equal rights or it will be a burden to the most 'successful' humans that walk around. I would think you lack some empathy and the ability to share and care for those who are less well off than you. 

 

And about that research into homosexual families. With ease one can find plenty of papers saying that the children in those have no noteable difference when it comes to being (issues).  Just one example (in Dutch):

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/644270&ved=2ahUKEwi1yYWoh9nqAhUpsKQKHdr2D6wQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw05SAuCjXJuiCHaLBt_oHrh

 

It might not be a good idea to use one single paper and take it all as fact. You may wish to see how broadly a paper is supported and what critism has been made against it.

[ChrisY1]

In the land of Ladyboys and Toms....it's fine.

[RJRS1301]

11 minutes ago, Donutz said:

It might not be a good idea to use one single paper and take it all as fact. You may wish to see how broadly a paper is supported and what critism has been made against it.

You are assuming an open and inquiring mind, with the ability to critically analyse and counteract ones own inherent  bias.

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

I think some  mammals can have similar emotions to love that humans do. You can see that with mother animals and their offspring, and easy to see how birds such as parrots, swans etc, pair bond for life, get jealous and angry over their mates, and defend them from others....much like you

show a strong desire to defend your Texas Christian professor and his Sacred work at all costs. Maybe you can marry your precious Regnerus and get over your outdated, small-minded and nasty views.

 

 

I would hate to be a child raised by you if they were gay or lesbian and you told them they had to give up their children as they were not fit to parent as they were gay. 

 

 

Sadly no evidence in science to support your belief that animals feel love in the same way that humans do.

 

Jealousy, anger, lust, of course, not human-type love though. 

 

It is of course your gay-supremacy view that is small-minded and refuses to acknowledge that not everything gay-related is wonderful, despite a comprehensive study from a university which demonstrates that children raised by same-sex couples have a greater number of issues in later life than children raised by intact heterosexual families.

 

My children are not gay or lesbian and I have no complaint about that.

[Logosone]

42 minutes ago, Donutz said:

You sat it's natural for heterosexuals to fall in love,  but not for homosexuals and animals can't fall in love... based on? Those hetro people must be very special if no other type of human or animal has the ability to fall in love.. I'm not buying it.

 

As for taxes etc. Plenty of other 'less productive' groups out there based on class, handicap , IQ, and what else not. Guess we should cut all the weaker people out and deny them any equal rights or it will be a burden to the most 'successful' humans that walk around. I would think you lack some empathy and the ability to share and care for those who are less well off than you. 

 

And about that research into homosexual families. With ease one can find plenty of papers saying that the children in those have no noteable difference when it comes to being (issues).  Just one example (in Dutch):

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/644270&ved=2ahUKEwi1yYWoh9nqAhUpsKQKHdr2D6wQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw05SAuCjXJuiCHaLBt_oHrh

 

It might not be a good idea to use one single paper and take it all as fact. You may wish to see how broadly a paper is supported and what critism has been made against it.

No you misread.

 

I did not say that homosexuals can't fall in love. I said the opposite. They do. I am however saying that among humans to develop a romantic fixation on a member of your own sex is not the natural choice. The natural and common option is to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex.

 

I have looked at the criticism of the Regnerus study but it is obviously motivated by things other than serious academic criticism. Gays don't like the data and I understand that. But that does not make the data flawed. Plenty of academics have defended Regnerus' findings.

 

Of course there are other papers that disagree. Nevertheless this is a peripheral point of little importance, because the number of gays who raise children is incredibly small relative to heterosexuals, and indeed most gays choose not to do so.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[jak2002003]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Sadly no evidence in science to support your belief that animals feel love in the same way that humans do.

 

Jealousy, anger, lust, of course, not human-type love though. 

 

It is of course your gay-supremacy view that is small-minded and refuses to acknowledge that not everything gay-related is wonderful, despite a comprehensive study from a university which demonstrates that children raised by same-sex couples have a greater number of issues in later life than children raised by intact heterosexual families.

 

My children are not gay or lesbian and I have no complaint about that.

Give it up man. You are making yourself look foolish at best and a nasty bigoted homophobe at worst.

 

You base all your argument on a biased and flawed single study when this study is outnumbered by other studies that disprove it.

 

It's funny you say that any study done by a gay scientist is biased and you discredit it. Did it enter you head that this straight christian Texan may be biased against homosexuals? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

35 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

It's funny you say that any study done by a gay scientist is biased and you discredit it. Did it enter you head that this straight christian Texan may be biased against homosexuals? 

Regnerus is not a christian Texan, he is from Chicago. He is merely teaching at Austin University, Texas. As a tenured professor.

 

I think I trust his professional judgement better than yours.

 

I did of course not discredit any study done by a gay scientist, I will say though that the academic witchhunt against Mark Regnerus was initiated by a well known gay activist, Gary Gates, whose distasteful personal allegations against Regnerus proved to be false and untenable.

 

Like I said, 27 academics have signed a letter supporting Regnerus and his research.

 

What was done with Regnerus was an outrage.

 

"A gay blogger formally complained to the president of the University of Texas in Austin that a study led by sociology associate professor Mark Regnerus was, yes, homophobic. The study’s guidelines had been previously approved by a university panel. Now the university has launched an investigation of the professor"

 

Needless to say Regnerus was vindicated after the investigation and cleared of the terrible crime of "homophobia".

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mark-regnerus-thoughtcriminal/

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[The Barmbeker]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Sadly no evidence in science to support your belief that animals feel love in the same way that humans do.

 

Jealousy, anger, lust, of course, not human-type love though. 

 

It is of course your gay-supremacy view that is small-minded and refuses to acknowledge that not everything gay-related is wonderful, despite a comprehensive study from a university which demonstrates that children raised by same-sex couples have a greater number of issues in later life than children raised by intact heterosexual families.

 

My children are not gay or lesbian and I have no complaint about that.

So animals OF COURSE can feel jealousy, anger and lust...just not love!

BASED ON WHAT?

Elephants, monkeys, apes and whales are know to grief over lost partners, herd members or babies!

So it is grief, jealousy (2 emotions that I would argue need love, to materialize), anger and lust...but no love?

Aaaaaaalright!

 

By the way: who here has argued anything to the notion og "gay surpremacy"?

That's right!

Nobody!

 

Still crickets on the heterosexual- pedophilia, I see!

Pathetic!

Edited July 19, 2020 by The Barmbeker

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, The Barmbeker said:

So animals OF COURSE can feel jealousy, anger and lust...just not love!

BASED ON WHAT?

Elephants, monkeys, apes and whales are know to grief over lost partners, herd members or babies!

So it is grief, jealousy (2 emotions that I would argue need love, to materialize), anger and lust...but no love?

Aaaaaaalright!

 

By the way: who here has argued anything to the notion og "gay surpremacy"?

That's right!

Nobody!

 

Still crickets on the heterosexual- pedophilia, I see!

Pathetic!

You have it the wrong way round. You are the one who is claiming that animals can feel love equal to human love.

 

So what is your evidence for this claim?

 

I'll save you the time, there is none whatsoever.

 

Yes, it is well established that some animals grieve over the death of another. It is well established that animals care for other animals. To make the anthropomorphic leap to see this as love equivalent to human love is simply a belief without evidence. Caring is not equal to love, grief is not equal to love, lust is not equal to love.

 

 

[brianp0803]

Although I don’t like the opinions of White Supremacists, homophobic and bigoted people,  they have a right to express their opinions

[jak2002003]

13 hours ago, Logosone said:

Regnerus is not a christian Texan, he is from Chicago. He is merely teaching at Austin University, Texas. As a tenured professor.

 

I think I trust his professional judgement better than yours.

 

I did of course not discredit any study done by a gay scientist, I will say though that the academic witchhunt against Mark Regnerus was initiated by a well known gay activist, Gary Gates, whose distasteful personal allegations against Regnerus proved to be false and untenable.

 

Like I said, 27 academics have signed a letter supporting Regnerus and his research.

 

What was done with Regnerus was an outrage.

 

"A gay blogger formally complained to the president of the University of Texas in Austin that a study led by sociology associate professor Mark Regnerus was, yes, homophobic. The study’s guidelines had been previously approved by a university panel. Now the university has launched an investigation of the professor"

 

Needless to say Regnerus was vindicated after the investigation and cleared of the terrible crime of "homophobia".

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mark-regnerus-thoughtcriminal/

Facts are it's straight men who commit the most sexual abuse of children and domestic violence. So it's YOU that is less suitable to bring up children than gays.

 

It's straight men more than gay men that want to lower age of consent. 

 

I think if you spent any time with a homosexual couple with children your irrational fears would be greatly eased.

 

Many studies have been shown there is no detrimental effects on children raised by same sex couples. You only have your 1 dubious study, but you won't entertain the others. That shows you are close minded and biased.

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, brianp0803 said:

Although I don’t like the opinions of White Supremacists, homophobic and bigoted people,  they have a right to express their opinions

Sure. Then they come out of the closet or out from under a rock so the public can see what they are. 

[jak2002003]

13 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

 

Logosone ... The study you keep referring to is so laughable it's not true...here for your benefit and other posters us just a few of the problems with it....

 

sizable number of the 236 respondents counted as “raised by” lesbian mothers and gay fathers had not, in fact, been raised by same-sex parents. For example, nine of the responses likely came from jokesters:

The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey.

Another 53 of the 236 responses came from children who lived with gay mothers or fathers for less than a year.  Another 20 came from respondents whose entries were otherwise inconsistent or improbable. Others had lived with gay parents for 2-4 years.

By the time you back these contested responses out of the analysis, here’s what you’re left with: “Of the 236 respondents identified by Regnerus (2012a) as living in a LM [lesbian mother] or GF [gay father] household, we identify only 51 that can plausibly be coded as being raised for at least a year in a same-sex couple household.”  [emphasis original]

How did these remaining 51 respondents compare to the children in the NFSS raised by their biological mothers and fathers?

Here we find only four significant differences, although the differences either are not indicative of any LM/GF disadvantage (i.e., sexual self-identification and having a same-sex romantic relationship) or do not gauge adult experiences (i.e., receiving public assistance in childhood and sense of safety and security while growing up). These patterns also are highly fragile and based in part on a couple of influential cases or outliers. Admittedly, even with a large overall sample, a subsample of 51 cases still limits the statistical power of the analysis. Still, the results are either inconclusive or suggestive that adult children raised by same-sex two-parent families show a comparable adult profile to their peers raised by two-biological-parent families.

[brianp0803]

In the recent past, children that were the product of bi-racial marriages likely suffered many problems. Initially they were many religion base arguments against interracial marriages. The problems were not due to the love or ability of the parents, but due to acceptance by society of bi-racial families. Hopefully, this is now common enough that bi-racial children are excepted by most people.

 

I think the same can be said about children raised by single sex couples. It is society that has a problem, and not the parents raising the child.(But I’m sure White Supremacists will feel differently)

 

Children probably learn most of the information about sex from their peers. But children need strong moral guidance from their parents

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Facts are it's straight men who commit the most sexual abuse of children and domestic violence. So it's YOU that is less suitable to bring up children than gays.

 

It's straight men more than gay men that want to lower age of consent. 

 

I think if you spent any time with a homosexual couple with children your irrational fears would be greatly eased.

 

Many studies have been shown there is no detrimental effects on children raised by same sex couples. You only have your 1 dubious study, but you won't entertain the others. That shows you are close minded and biased.

 

 

 

 

If you were to look at it dispassionately, without the gay rights blinkers, you would in fact see that the percentage of male child abuse victims is 48%

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203831/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-gender/

 

And yet the percentage of gay men in the population is in most large scale surveys only 2-4%.

 

So once you control for percentage of population actually it is possible that homosexual men perpetrate, proportionally, significantly more offences related to paedophilia.

 

I have certainly seen documented evidence of gay rights activists like Volker Beck and Peter Tatchell demanding the legalisation of paedophilia, I have not seen heterosexual mainstream politicians do so.

 

I do not have any "irrational fears" in terms of homosexual couples raising children and you are right that many studies conclude there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents, however, the numbers of gays who raise children is relatively small in any event so this is not a major issue. The concerns you refer to were of course uncovered in a study led by a sociology professor at a university, and that professor is still at said university, despite many attempts by gay rights activists to get him expulsed. His study has not been retracted, despite desperate attempts to find very minor flaws like the ones you refer to, and the review process of the journal that published has been found to be impeccable. Since the study was peer reviewed by other academics that suffices to establish its validity as academic research.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

After double checking the above figures I wish to correct something. 

 

According to the US Department of Justice 82% of all juvenile (under age 18) victims of sexual assaults were female, with 18% male.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

Therefore disregard the above figure of 48%, the correct figure is 18%.

 

The main point still stands, however, 18% of sexual assault victims are male, and male homosexuals make up only 2-4% of the population.

 

So it is possible that homosexuals commit more sexual assaults on juveniles relative to their population.

 

 

[Saint Nick]

43 minutes ago, Logosone said:

After double checking the above figures I wish to correct something. 

 

According to the US Department of Justice 82% of all juvenile (under age 18) victims of sexual assaults were female, with 18% male.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

Therefore disregard the above figure of 48%, the correct figure is 18%.

 

The main point still stands, however, 18% of sexual assault victims are male, and male homosexuals make up only 2-4% of the population.

 

So it is possible that homosexuals commit more sexual assaults on juveniles relative to their population.

 

 

...and who said, the male victims were assaulted exclusively by men?

Women can assault men (or boys) too...you know?

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

...and who said, the male victims were assaulted exclusively by men?

Women can assault men (or boys) too...you know?

 

Well, the US Department of Justice statistics (p.8) would indicate that the perpetrators of sexual assault on children are 96% male.

 

"Nearly all of the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%)"

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

The number of sexual assaults on children by females is so small that it can be discounted.

 

Now if homosexual men are 2% of the population and 18% of sexual assaults on children have male victims, that would indicate a 5-6 times over-representation of homosexuals in sexual assaults on children..

 

Since 82% of sexual assaults on children have female victims but hetereosexual males represent 93% of the population, in fact heterosexual males are under-represented in that category in proportion to their percentage of population.

 

The conclusion that paedophilia among homosexual men is disproportionately higher than among heterosexual males is near therefore.

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Logosone

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

If you were to look at it dispassionately, without the gay rights blinkers,

Please substitute the words "gay rights blinkers" with "heterosexual male blinkers", 

[RJRS1301]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well, the US Department of Justice statistics (p.8) would indicate that the perpetrators of sexual assault on children are 96% male.

 

"Nearly all of the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%)"

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

The number of sexual assaults on children by females is so small that it can be discounted.

 

Now if homosexual men are 2% of the population and 18% of sexual assaults on children have male victims, that would indicate a 5-6 times over-representation of homosexuals in sexual assaults on children..

 

Since 82% of sexual assaults on children have female victims but hetereosexual males represent 93% of the population, in fact heterosexual males are under-represented in that category in proportion to their percentage of population.

 

The conclusion that paedophilia among homosexual men is disproportionately higher than among heterosexual males is near therefore.

 

To conflate two totally separate and distinct issues shows questionable ability for dispassionate debate.

 

[Saint Nick]

37 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

To conflate two totally separate and distinct issues shows questionable ability for dispassionate debate.

 

I forgot for a second, that I didn't want to engage in a discussion with this individual...