On Sep 16, 5:17 pm, Martin Koolhoven
wrote:
> > If having an opinion on something was a disqualifier for researching
> > it and testing that opinion, how many people would be qualified to
> > research?
>
> People who aren't prejudice. So not people from the religious right.
> Nor ... rights activists.
>That's illogical. Everyone has some opinion of homo.uality.
C'mon. You do understand that ... activists and the religious right
are two sides of a spectrum. Sure, there is no such think as total
objectivity (cliche), but there *is* such a thing as extremely
subjective.
> Why should thinking poorly of it affect the way one does research but
thinking well of it not affect the way one does research?
Didn't I mention ... activists as well?
> Look, the ... researches have an interest in proving what
>
> > they believe, and the FRC is naturally going to be skeptical of their
> > objectivity _before the fact_.
>
> They were done by an Adoption Institute who's interest is with the
> children.
>Um, Martin, has it ever occurred to you that Focus on the Family and
>the Family Research Council also care about children? Wait, no,
>they're religious fanatics. Never mind. ;)
I believe they have that as an interest, but they have already come
tot the conclusion that their religious ways are best anyway. It's in
their statutes. Since being ... is against those believes it is
therefore impossible that they would be positive about ... marriage.
> I had the feeling your stuff was older than the research I
> was refering to. All the dates I saw were long ago.
>Show me.
It's on the link you gave. I swa nothing after 2001.
> > "The deficiencies
> > of studies on homo.ual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate
> > sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research
> > participants, and self-presentation bias."
>
> I think this is the world upside down. There are laws against ...
> marriage and against ...s adopting. There should be proof against ...s
> to have those laws, not lack of proof ...s should have the same
> rights.
Evasive.
But it's true. Anyway, I think this conversation is strange in onother
way. We're talking about their right to adopt which should be
something completely different from there right to marry.
> > Do you know they're wrong about this? No, all you know is that you
> > don't want to believe them.
>
> I have reason to doubt them. It's like reading about blacks on a
> KluKluxKlan site.
Yeah, that's what you guys want to believe, and no amount of my
posting evidence to the contrary ever makes you change your mind.
Which positive evidence?
>OK,
then, enjoy believing that conservative Christians hate ...s. That
really simplifies matters, doesn't it?
I don't believe all do. I haven't seen conservative Christian
organizations, though.
> But as I posted earlier, they're not the
>
> > only people citing these problems.
>
> Find me a nonreligious source. Every nonreligious source I can find
> comes to a completely different conclusion then your beliefs.
The article I posted has all sorts of cites from secular sources.
Journal of Counseling and Development, Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, Developmental Psychology, Child Psychiatry and Human
Development , etc.
Here's an FRC article on ... health with dozens of citations from
secular sources: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1 Do you think kids
benefit from healthy parents?
Sure. Are unhealthy parents forbidden to have children? Should they?
Martin
|