This Site's View on Same-Sex Marriage

[John Dibble]

Bram, I'll let bogart defend his own argument, but I feel the need to make one comment.

You pointed out 'invalid, biased sources'. First off, a biased source does not necessarily make the information invalid. Prove that the sources are actually invalid if you want to make that claim. And since we're talking about biased sources - you mentioned that what you put earlier may have been by NARTH - are they not biased on the subject?

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, NARTH was one of the publishers, as was the APA and many other organizations. As a matter of fact, I gave you the original USC source. NARTH didn't do the study; that's not NARTH's purpose. However, these sources are all homosexual organizations, so of course they're going to get statistics with broad answers like "stable" and "healthy". Nevertheless, I answered those anyway.

[© tweed]

Up to the states

[John Dibble]

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.

This is why I said that, and it's also why I included 'may'. You said it was either by USC or by NARTH. And something makes me doubt that NARTH would publish any studies that would be in favor of homosexuals(empirical or not).

But, as I said, a group having a bias doesn't make the statistic invalid. So, if you claim they are invalid, you will have to do better than just saying that the organizations are biased.

Also, I noticed in your arguments against the studies something about the number of participants in many of the studies being too small to draw a conclusion. I'm not going to agree or disagree, but the numbers are likely not very different for the study you presented earlier(25 lesbian parents, 20 heterosexual parents), so your argument is a double edged sword - if you say one group is an accurate judgement and then go on to say that studies using similar numbers of samples are innacurate then you are being two-faced. So, which is it? Is this number too small to make conclusions or is it enough?

[Josh/Devilman88]

I agree with boss.. just let it be up to the states....

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Half of the studies were provided by bogart, and the other half were different studies done by Journals he used. The one that said the "model range" of partners for a homosexual is 101-500 was a survey of over 2000 homosexuals. The studies I provide are all published by APA-endorsed organizations or schools.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Half of the studies were provided by bogart, and the other half were different studies done by Journals he used. The one that said the "model range" of partners for a homosexual is 101-500 was a survey of over 2000 homosexuals. The studies I provide are all published by APA-endorsed organizations or schools.

That wasn't the question, and that was not the study I referred to(not to mention bogart tackled that one).

THIS is what I was referring to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, once again I reiterate my question - by your standards, that you did post, is this or is this not a sufficient number to create a valid conclusion? I thought I made that clear last time. DO NOT DODGE THE QUESTION.

IF YOU NEED A REMINDER ON YOUR STANDARDS:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, another comment you made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually untrue to an extent. If the control group(the heterosexual group of parents this group was compared to) also consisted of whilte, urban, well-educated people, provided a big enough sample on both sides, this would be an accurate representation of whilte, urban, well-educated homosexual males' ability to parent. It wouldn't represent all gay parents, but it would represent that particular group of them(and, as I said, the control group must be similar, just being hetero instead of homosexual, homosexuality being the independent variable of the study).

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take a chill pill. I'm not dodging any question- I misunderstood what you are saying. To answer your question, no, it is probably not an accurate representation. As I said in my post, and as my sources agree, it is impossible to get an accurate representation since there are very few children of homosexual households who are adults today..

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take a chill pill. I'm not dodging any question- I misunderstood what you are saying. To answer your question, no, it is probably not an accurate representation. As I said in my post, and as my sources agree, it is impossible to get an accurate representation since there are very few children of homosexual households who are adults today..

Ok, sorry, taking the pill now. I just get testy when I think people are dodging the issue(it happens way too much in politics).

You are probably right though - currently the best option we have is to see if these smaller studies correlate(best to use the same or similar methods). However, I think a long term study of a few hundred households(of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual families) would be good. Get the participants and their kids to come in, rate them on a number of standardized scales, ect. What would be really good if possible(but it won't be, as the situation I'm about to present will be an even smaller population) would be twin studies - one twin adopted to a homosexual couple, the other to a heterosexual couple - as with twin studies you take out the genetic factor influencing behaviour and can make a solid comparison.

[Brambila]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

[specific_name]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

[specific_name]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

[Brambila]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

This is only due to a corrupt adoption system. I think we should reinstitute orphanages, where children do have parents among the caretakers.

[Brambila]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

It's not inconsistent at all to what I've said. I said it was impossible to have an accurate study on how children are negatively effected on homosexuality. However, common sense allows us to see that the characteristics of homosexuality (promiscuity; violence; pedophilia) can fall upon the child negatively.

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

I was talking to Bram. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking to you. Saying that there is proven detriment when he himself has stated that most studies on the subject at hand are too small to be valid is a not the correct way to go about things.

[specific_name]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

This is only due to a corrupt adoption system. I think we should reinstitute orphanages, where children do have parents among the caretakers.

A variety of solutions are needed right now. I think having a childhood outside of an orphanage or non permenant home, can be more benificial to a child.

[specific_name]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

I was talking to Bram. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking to you. Saying that there is proven detriment when he himself has stated that most studies on the subject at hand are too small to be valid is a not the correct way to go about things.

Sorry I got confused there... Well I didn't say there was a proven detriment, I didn't mean to imply that. Really I was trying to say, I don't care if someone is gay.

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

It's not inconsistent at all to what I've said. I said it was impossible to have an accurate study on how children are negatively effected on homosexuality. However, common sense allows us to see that the characteristics of homosexuality (promiscuity; violence; pedophilia) can fall upon the child negatively.

Ok, well, first off, promiscuity, violence, and pedophilia are not characteristics that all homosexuals share(where did violence come from anyways? And I'll comment on pedophilia in a moment.) - common sense and reason would actually say that we look at the lifestlye of the parents wanting to adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, and make a determination on whether they are suitable parents or not based on them as individuals, not because they are part of some predefined group. There are many heterosexual couples not suited to raising children as well, who would do far worse than a stable, commited homosexual couple.

As far as pedophilia goes, you said :

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.
[/quote]

I believe you are misinterpreting this. When the word homosexual is used here, it means that the act is performed by a member of the same sex, not necessarily by a homosexual(that is, someone who prefers sexually developed members of the same sex). Homosexuality(disorder or not) and pedophilia are different. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. If I'm not mistaken, most pedophiles who are attracted to adults as well prefer the opposite sex when it comes to adults, even if their molestation was on a child of the same sex. But of course, many pedophiles are not attracted to adults at all. For an example of what I'm talking about, think about those Catholic Priests who molested alter boys - in reality they are likely straight, but due to their position(which makes it hard for them to have a relationship with a woman, which likely they prefer) they are forced into a desperate situation(there's problems with having too much sex, yes, but there are also problems brought about by not getting any at all).

[John Dibble]

Sure. I'm sure many studies are being done. However, my point still remains that the homosexual lifestyle is not suitable for children.

Better than no parents at all. Especially in the case of foster kids who can't find homes.

And of course, we haven't proven this one way or the other, if you want to be consistent. However, I think the evidence points to minimal effects(about the same number of effects that would come from being raised in another culture).

Well to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if someone becomes gay because nothing is wrong with it. Whether it is a choice or not, there are more important things than who someone else loves. I'm familiar with the foster care system which why I mentioned this before, I just want every child to have a home.

I was talking to Bram. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking to you. Saying that there is proven detriment when he himself has stated that most studies on the subject at hand are too small to be valid is a not the correct way to go about things.

Sorry I got confused there... Well I didn't say there was a proven detriment, I didn't mean to imply that. Really I was trying to say, I don't care if someone is gay.

Oh, no, no, as I said, I was responding to Bram, not you, I should have quoted just him to avoid this confusion in the first place.

As far as your view, that's pretty much it - doesn't affect me, so I don't care.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For your first argument, you've been over passing my points. In an ideal world, if homosexuals were simply man and man, living, acting, and loving the same way a healthy heterosexual marriage would, then we wouldn't have this problem and homosexual couples would be allowed to adopt. However, such is not the case. It is impossible for homosexuals to have such a relationship. I've already shown in statistics how homosexual have a high rate of pedophilia, how homosexuals are extremely promiscuous, how homosexuals have a high incidence of violence*, mental disorder** (including suicide), and substance abuse***.

Your second argument is an equivocation. I've already explained that heterosexual couples who are abusive or unstable should not be able to adopt as homosexual couples shouldn't. The difference is, homosexual characteristically have unstable relationships since the human race wasn’t evolved to make two men have sexual relationships. I remember reading a book on adolescent psychology and they explain the relationships of humans from childhood to adulthood. It starts during the childhood, where children make friendships with same sex. As they grow older, they invite the opposite sex to become friends as well. Soon, the opposite sex is the best friend, and men are not. The reason for this is as men and women get older they cannot adapt to people of the same sex well on many important issues, specifically sexual and hormonal ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure most homosexuals are not pedophiles, but the amount of those who are is three-to-eight times higher than heterosexual relationships. And you're incorrect about the Catholic priests- those who abused children were mostly homosexual. What happened around Vatican II and the sexual revolution was a growing amount of homosexuals entering the priesthood trying to prevent them from sin. Instead, they put themselves in position of sin. It has nothing to do with desperate situations.

*Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been verbally abused with their close partners, and 31% reported physical abuse; of 1099 lesbians, Journal of Social Service Research reported that more than half of lesbians had been abused by their partners or lovers, mostly verbal and physical-psychological abuse; Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence found that domestic violence among homosexuals is double than that in heterosexuals

**Jorunal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology stated that 75% of 2,000 homosexuals looked for psychological help for depression or deep sadness, with 20% of homosexuals abusing marijuana; 30% using tobacco daily; 50% had insecurity. Archives of General Psychiatry stated that homosexuals were 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide. In another study by the same journal, of 1007 participants, homosexuals were more likely to have mental problems.

***Nursing Research found that 91% of lesbian participants had abused drugs in addition to alcohol, 34% reported difficulties with eating, 11% with sex addiction.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For your first argument, you've been over passing my points. In an ideal world, if homosexuals were simply man and man, living, acting, and loving the same way a healthy heterosexual marriage would, then we wouldn't have this problem and homosexual couples would be allowed to adopt. However, such is not the case. It is impossible for homosexuals to have such a relationship. I've already shown in statistics how homosexual have a high rate of pedophilia, how homosexuals are extremely promiscuous, how homosexuals have a high incidence of violence*, mental disorder** (including suicide), and substance abuse***.

Your second argument is an equivocation. I've already explained that heterosexual couples who are abusive or unstable should not be able to adopt as homosexual couples shouldn't. The difference is, homosexual characteristically have unstable relationships since the human race wasn’t evolved to make two men have sexual relationships. I remember reading a book on adolescent psychology and they explain the relationships of humans from childhood to adulthood. It starts during the childhood, where children make friendships with same sex. As they grow older, they invite the opposite sex to become friends as well. Soon, the opposite sex is the best friend, and men are not. The reason for this is as men and women get older they cannot adapt to people of the same sex well on many important issues, specifically sexual and hormonal ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure most homosexuals are not pedophiles, but the amount of those who are is three-to-eight times higher than heterosexual relationships. And you're incorrect about the Catholic priests- those who abused children were mostly homosexual. What happened around Vatican II and the sexual revolution was a growing amount of homosexuals entering the priesthood trying to prevent them from sin. Instead, they put themselves in position of sin. It has nothing to do with desperate situations.

*Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been verbally abused with their close partners, and 31% reported physical abuse; of 1099 lesbians, Journal of Social Service Research reported that more than half of lesbians had been abused by their partners or lovers, mostly verbal and physical-psychological abuse; Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence found that domestic violence among homosexuals is double than that in heterosexuals

**Jorunal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology stated that 75% of 2,000 homosexuals looked for psychological help for depression or deep sadness, with 20% of homosexuals abusing marijuana; 30% using tobacco daily; 50% had insecurity. Archives of General Psychiatry stated that homosexuals were 6.5 times more likely to attempt suicide. In another study by the same journal, of 1007 participants, homosexuals were more likely to have mental problems.

***Nursing Research found that 91% of lesbian participants had abused drugs in addition to alcohol, 34% reported difficulties with eating, 11% with sex addiction.

Bram - could you find links please, I've been searching with no luck(only find sites that reference the studies). You can tell me what those studies find, but I would still like to look at them to see if they are empiracal(good methods, random sampling, ect) or misinterpreted. If you can't find them, that's fine, but I can't do a proper analysis on the studies unless I can see the methods used(though I'm making a few guesses and observations up ahead).

On the substance abuse issue - two of the substances mentioned don't bother me - tobacco and marijuana. Their tobacco levels are not very deviant of normal tobacco consumption compared to the rest of the country(http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics_tobacco.htm). Marijuana - define abuse in this respect, is it that they just use it, or that they use it many times a day(it could easily be considered the former, because unlike alcohol, which must be used in excess to be considered abused, it is illegal). Most marijuana users use it only now and then, perhaps up to three times a week. The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in original version, but deleted from official version) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).

(I'd also like to say that my father, my aunt, and my gay uncle all smoked marijuana regularly until about 4 years ago, though now they do not, and even after my father's death my aunt and uncle were smart enough to keep that secret until they knew I was old enough to know better. This is just to point out that just because a parent or relative uses a substance that they still may have the sense to know not to introduce it to the child.)


On the Nursing Research one - I find constant reference to this:
Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244 - judging by the title, it sounds to me as if this particular study invovled participants who already had an alcohol problem(which usually leads to other problems) and sought treatment, not the normal lesbian population. If I'm right about this, this study is often misinterpreted(might help if we could find out how the participants were gathered).

Also, I would like to give you a friendly reminder that correlation does not equal causation. Being homosexual may not be the root of the problems, or at least some of them. I think much of society's attitudes towards homosexuals does cause homosexuals psychological problems. An attitude change(a more live and let live philosophy would suffice) in general society would help them greatly, wouldn't you agree? (here's a good article that hints at possible causes of homosexual domestic abuse: http://www.gaypartnerabuseproject.org/html/articles.html)

Also, I think the notion that homosexuals can't have healthy relationships is B.S., and you've yet to prove that. If you can prove that there are no homosexual couples AT ALL that do not have a stable relationship, go ahead and do it, but I'm damn sure you can't. Even if you refuse to believe it, there ARE stable, healthy homosexual relationships(My uncle is currently in one, though his previous one was admittedly not healthy, but there was no promiscuity as both relationships were long term, my uncle eventually realized his previous relationship was unhealthy and cut it off). As I said, ALL couples wanting to adopt should be looked at closely before they are allowed - if a homosexual couple is unfit I would be perfectly fine with not allowing it, but there are ones out there that would make great parents(to be truthful, I wouldn't consider my uncle one, because he's a workaholic[owns his own business] and wouldn't be able to make time needed for a child, and he's a bit too old for it, but other than that he would do good I would think). I judge people as individuals, not groups, and for this reason I feel it is better to deal with couples as individuals and not merely discount their ability to parent because they are homosexual. If you feel that a couple should be looked at more closely because they are homosexual(due to the possibility of increased risk factors), I would consider that would be perfectly logical.

Edit - just another thought, but I have doubts that those in very unstable relationships would consider adopting a child. I have no statistical data to back this, but in my experience few unstable couples of any type try to adopt.

[John Dibble]

On the pedophilia issue:

http://www.fallwell.com/pedophilia.html

This sums things up pretty well. But also, I would like to say I did look up more on the Catholic priest issue, and you are correct saying that those were homosexuals for the most part(82% actually, as the victims were post-pubecent) Just so you know, the term 'homosexual pedophile' is a clinical term refering to a pedophile who preys on members of the same sex, not necessarily someone who has adult homosexual relations(this group includes those who have adult heterosexual relations, or no adult relations at all).

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’ll give you all the sources- I can’t find direct links.

*Lesbian violence- "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," (Journal of Interpersonal Violence)
"Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications" (Journal of Social Service Research, issue 15)
“Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence”

**"Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians" (from The Washington Blade)
"A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men" (Archives of General Psychiatry)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is that 30% of homosexuals smoke tobacco daily. I smoke every once in a while, and I’m part of that 25%. However, these homosexuals smoke daily, which is the key word in the study. The marijuana study said that they smoke at least once a month. Now, I don’t really care much about this study. Personally, I believe marijuana should be legalized. Nonetheless, the fact that 20% of homosexuals do use marijuana seems pretty high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s a flawed assumption. The study wasn’t just surveying lesbians who had alcoholism, they surveyed other lesbians. However, the point they made with that survey was that 90% of lesbians abuse alcohol. The study did include a diverse amount of lesbians, I’m sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The link was broken, but let me explain: why don’t devout Catholics have higher rates of alcoholism and psychological problems? The truth is, society cannot possibly cause these problems. These problems stem directly from the parents or the children’s parental figures. If I make fun of a homosexual, he’s not going to become bipolar or become an alcoholic. Further, homosexuals are not persecuted as much as they say. I’ve never met an individual, in fact, who truly persecutes homosexuals. If one of our friends says he’s gay, we ignore it, and don’t make jokes in front of him that may be taken offensively.  Homosexuals don’t live in Sioux Falls or Idaho. Most of them live in New York; San Francisco; Boston; Seattle; Los Angeles; Washington; Austin; Sacramento; cities that accept them. Similarly, devout Christians don’t live in New York, Boston, et cetera. They live in Virginia, South Carolina, Idaho, and places that accept them. Therefore, to say that society is the reason why homosexuals have an astonishing high number of problems is a flawed assumption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, you’re twisting what I said. I never said that homosexuals can’t have healthy relationships. I said they can’t have healthy relationships in context to being parents of a child. In other words, the homosexual relationship is unhealthy for the child, though not necessarily for the couple themselves.  I did prove this, it’s very simple. People of the same sex cannot be parentally compatible with each other. Men and women are different, and this difference is what makes a healthy parental relationship with children. Your uncle (if it’s true that he wasn’t promiscuous in both relationships; I’m sure you don’t know that for a fact) is an exception. I know plenty of homosexuals who are like this- most of the homosexuals I know, who are in the dozens. The reason why they can’t parent isn’t because they are individually homosexual- I’m sure a homosexual father and straight mother can parent a child. However, it’s the two parents of the same sex that causes problems. It’s not the homosexuality, in this sense. Although homosexuality comes with it’s problems, if a homosexual does not have these problems (which is rare), they can become a parent if the other parent is a woman. However, any two people of the same sex cannot be parents. For instance, my friend’s father grew up living with a grandmother and his mother. This created a lot of problems in his life; depression, neglect, etc. His youngest memories were how he envied his friends for having fathers, when he never had one. A same-sex parent household is indeed one of the most threatening family lifestyle in the history of humanity.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but homosexuals can even have stable relationships and create problems.

And your statistics for pedophilia are inaccurate, as they say “none of them had exclusively adult homosexual orientations. Of course not- they also had child homosexual orientations. Nobody is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual.  The rest of the studies simply do not give me enough information and are too small of samples. My samples were made up of thousands of homosexuals. These samples are in the dozens and up to 300.

I know what the definition of homosexual pedophile is, and although it does not mean the person has to have homosexual relationships as an adult, most of the time the adult has that orientation, and up till the mid 70s homosexuality and pedophilia were both considered disorders. The "homosexal pedophile" is a relatively new term, made by politically correct individuals.

[John Dibble]

Bram, since you can't find links to the studies and I can't either(I found those references easy before, I thought I told you , and all the essays on them just seem copied from one source in general, and the problem is they never mention the sampling methods, only 'participants'). You aren't going to convince me homosexuality is a disorder, nor have you proven to me that all homosexuals are incapable of being healthy parents. I'm not going to convince you of the opposite(we're like two brick walls arguing with eachother, we ain't budging).

Once again, on the Nursing Research study - you can't prove my assumption wrong(and it wasn't an assumption, it was a 'maybe', as I can't prove it either, just an educated guess by looking at context of the title) unless you link the study. I've found contact info for the author, so I'm going to e-mail her and ask about the sampling methods used for this study. We'll find out one way or another, so just wait till I get a response to this before we move on with it.

On the problems homosexuals may have - I did not say society caused all the problems, just some may be caused or enhanced by it. I certainly know society is a lot more tolerant nowadays, but I do think we could continue with it. Also consider that someone being homosexual often causes problems within their family(being rejected by your loved ones is not helpful to mental well being), though of course not always.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true of heterosexual couples too.


Anyways, have a fine day Bram. I'm waiting on that response from Dr. Hall before I continue this.