Posted on 04/27/2006 3:30:52 PM PDT by DBeers
Dah!!!!
Which is why they want to be able to adopt it is their way of propagating.
I agree the results are statistically significant and that they warrant a larger study.
Family Research Coucil is not the bogeyman that many in the press paint them to be. They do good work.
This "study" is junk science
Identifies a homosexual? It's the act itself that defines the homosexual. If a man has sex with men, then he is one.
Homosexuality is a dangerous sex addiction.
It's hard to make my point without being offensive, but here goes ....
Have you noticed how many lesbians have a mannish appearance? I don't mean boyish hairstyles, but the shape and structure of faces? I don't mean to offend, but the appearances of some lesbians leads me to believe there's a genetic component to the why homosexuals are that way. These lesbians may have received doses of male hormones in utero, perhaps.
I guess the whole point is we just don't know about whether nature, nurture, or some combination causes homosexuality.
I would much rather see a study done by a slightly more independent organization.
I know... LOL
Among other things, my background is Statistical Methods heavy -mainly design experimintation and business process improvement.
Rule one as to objective accuracy -that which you seek to monitor, improve, and or correlate to must be objectively an identifiable and measurable item...
"Study Shows Water is Wet, Hippies Smell Bad."
I would also like to know which if any of the homosexual parents contributed to the genetic make-up of the child? Which of the lesbians, if any, are the natural mother of the child and which of the male-mo's donated sperm for the child? And if there was a third person involved who donated their genes, is that person gay or straight? In addition, if the child is adopted, what is the sexual orientation of the natural parents? And at what age did the adoption take place? Was the "child" already gay at the time of the adoption?
It should be obvious by now that ALL such studies even if one assumes "organizational independence" are at best premised in subjective declaration and assumption with nothing objectively measurable to correlate to or independently repeat and or confirm e.g. a "homosexuality test". Good science stands alone...
As such, "homosexual" study and research being put forth is not actually science and as such always questionable...
All homosexuality studies are; however, this study supports my position so I like it!
Looking at the contradictory study and research results published by those for and against the homosexual agenda one can come to only one conclusion -subjective "science"...
My question has always been - how is it that junk science produced by the left is basis for overturning and declaring illegitimate conventional wisdom historically observed by society and always understood to be legitimate and therefore never requiring a scientific basis or proof?
Very odd -it is as if there is an agenda...
My Machiavellian logic dictated that if more guys turned queer, that would cut down on the competition a bit, leaving more women for me. >:-)
Now that I'm in a committed relationship with the best woman in the world, I can't say I really give a crap anymore about it.
I can't argue with honesty!
I respect posters like you
D'OH!
LOL - I have heard of this "logic".
No kidding!
This isn't rocket science.
After the same sex couple "adopts" SAME SEX children, I shudder at what goes on behind closed doors with the SAME SEX children ... it's a learned behavior, by CHOICE.
"They had to do a study on this? Talk about the "duh" factor. Jeesh."
Ditto!
Just shows you how stupid people have become to the OBVIOUS.
Years ago, we used to call this, "MISSION:Impossible."
Due to their homosexuality, they do not involve themselves in activity that would allow them to have children. By its very nature, they are DESELECTED for breeding. Allowing them to circumvent this by adoption is an atrocity.
That's a fair criticism, but not necessarily a conclusive one. Granted, any study or survey that uses responses as its evidence can always be questioned. That is why the larger the sample size, the better. Secondly, one can never be assured of the complete independence of the survey, but in this case, the complete lack of independence coupled with the inadequate sample size delegitimizes any conclusions, making them only anecdotal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.