Actor wrote: » RE post 1375: "...researchers cannot possible [sic.] evaluate the degree to which particular samples do or do not represent the population." also, RE post 1336 Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552 "In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children" Mmm. Also: "These results were based on a small sample, and they must be interpreted with caution" Also: "Because of the small sample size and the absence of statistical tests, this finding should be seen as suggestive rather than conclusive." When I see some definitive and significant statistical testing that's (preferably quantitative rather than wishy-washy qualitative research findings), I'll take things to the next level. Until then, the onus is on you.
Actor wrote: » jumping to all kinds of conclusions about gay people and their behaviours makes a mockery of real science.
Actor wrote: » I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).
King Mob wrote: » So that's 4 out of the dozens you've been provided, which included large scale systematic reviews which gathers together these smaller scale studies and looks for a trend. And the trend does not support your conclusion. And you cannot provide one study that supports your position.
NuMarvel wrote: » Which is EXACTLY what you're doing.
Actor wrote: » I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).
Actor wrote: » I am saying that these "scientific" studies that support pro-homosexual unions are usually biased and unrepresentative: - authors are usually gay themselves or heavily involved in the pro-homosexual lobby - jump to conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes - emphasise qualitative research as hard quantitative evidence doesn't add up for them - usually publish in b-list journals Now, if you'd like to provide me with a particular study (as opposed to summary studies) that suits your agenda, please forward it on to me. I have time this afternoon.
King Mob wrote: » Lol so you're not going to back up your assertion.
King Mob wrote: » Please back up these assertions. Or withdraw them as the ignorant lies they are. Again, you've been repeatedly provided a long list of studies and statements from professional bodies that all disagree with you. I'm not going to waste my time finding it and reposting it for you when you are just going fall back onto your increasingly silly gay conspiracy theory idea. Again, if you feel like debating like an adult, go find and address those studies.
Actor wrote: » What part of "my personal experience" do you not understand? Also, this is a moral argument. Not necessarily a scientific one. If you want to debate on the moral plane. Fine. If you want to restrict this debate to the scientific plane, then I'm not interested in engaging with someone who won't withdraw remarks when called up on them.
Actor wrote: » I asked you to provide me with one study that you find compelling. Not a list of studies (and/or summary research findings) that you yourself admit have holes in them with regards to sample sizes and statistical (in)significance.
Actor wrote: » Homosexuality isn't just a scientific issue. It's a predominantly moral issue. But of course those on the pro-homosexual lifestyle side choose to focus in on the scientific side of things because their moral arguments in favour of homosexuality are weak. I have respect for all humans, whether they take it up the bum or not. It's the Catholic thing to do. It's their opinions that I have issue with and these will continue to be held up to scrutiny and ridicule.
King Mob wrote: » Nothing. Just that your personal experience and comments about it both display and show how it is tainted by your bigotry. Either back up your assertions in a verifiable, objective way, or withdraw them. Simply stating it on your own authority isn't going to fly as none of us are even convinced you really hold the positions you say you do.
King Mob wrote: » Because one study is never compelling by itself. It's the weight of peer reviewed studies and statements of professional bodies vs your nonexistant studies that show the opposite and you own personal bias and bigotry that makes it convincing.
Actor wrote: » This is a discussion forum. Not a court of law. If I say I regularly see homosexuals engaging in "cruising" in the vicinity of my home, who are you to say otherwise? Are you now acting as the thought-police?
Actor wrote: » Now I've repeated asked you to provide me with a study that shows that there is no difference between gay/lesbian parents and normal parents. I'd appreciate if: - the authors themselves were scientists and weren't involved in pro-homosexual lobby groups - there's a quantitative element to the research findings (i.e. significant results) - no emphasis on wishy-wash qualitative studies (interviews, surveys, etc.) - you quoted an A-list journal of repute
Actor wrote: » So no studies on their own are compelling? And one has to blindly rely on the "weight of peer review"? That's fine with me. You've just lost the argument. Do you mind me asking what other field of scientific research such a position would be accepted?
Actor wrote: » NuMarvel wrote: » Which is EXACTLY what you're doing. Homosexuality isn't just a scientific issue. It's a predominantly moral issue. But of course those on the pro-homosexual lifestyle side choose to focus in on the scientific side of things because their moral arguments in favour of homosexuality are weak. I have respect for all humans, whether they take it up the bum or not. It's the Catholic thing to do. It's their opinions that I have issue with and these will continue to be held up to scrutiny and ridicule.
Actor wrote: » It's ok... I understand you're not gay. It's fine. Go talk to someone in a wooly jumper about it. You're getting very close to my ignore list now. I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).
Actor wrote: » Also, this is a moral argument. Not necessarily a scientific one. If you want to debate on the moral plane. Fine. If you want to restrict this debate to the scientific plane, then I'm not interested in engaging with someone who won't withdraw remarks when called up on them.
Actor wrote: » A cursory glance at any pro-homosexual journal shows that the vast majority of authors engage in homosexual behaviour in one form or another (this ranges from "monogomous marriage simulation" to "cruising").
Sin City wrote: » How do you figure homosexuality is a moral issue?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Because he is agin it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I have seen heterosexual men and women engaging in acts of sexual gratification on our streets in broad daylight. Every night young heterosexual women drunkenly flaunt their bodies on our city streets while young men shout sexual innuendos at them. My elderly mother was so shocked to encounter a young man and woman in a city centre shopping mall engaging in simulated sexual intercourse at 1pm one Patrick's day that she publicly upbraided them and called security. The Parade attended by children was passing by outside just feet from where this was happening. But apparently only the gheys are immoral...:rolleyes:
PDN wrote: » Is there a single Christian poster who, in this thread or anyone else on this board, has given the impression that they would not find the things you've just described as immoral? :rolleyes:
Sarky wrote: » So TD's can expect a wave of demands from constituents to legislate against wanton displays of heterosexuality, yeah? I can't help but feel you're being a teeny bit disingenuous here.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Is there a single Christian poster on this thread who has mentioned that heterosexuals can be and are sexually promiscuous or are accusations of that kind of thing reserved for homosexuals only?
PDN wrote: » Without bothering to scroll through numerous pages of type (or tripe) and cite all such mentions, the first one was in post number 9 where the New Testament was quoted to condemn adultery.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Are you now going to pull up every poster who fails to scroll through 1469 posts on a thread made up of merged threads to ensure something wasn't mentioned before?
Actor made these claims on this page so I responded on this page. Why is that an issue exactly?
Would you like to point out to Actor that as he has previously made these claims in this thread he should not repeat himself?
Who said anything about adultery? I have no idea of the teenagers my mother chastised were married or not??? That is not the point and you know it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
