#2 Journal of Homosexuality
#3 Journal of Homosexuality
#4 Developmental Psychology [Compares a group of 15 White lesbian couples] Not your typical cross section of homosexual subjects including but not limited to "NAMBLA MEMBERS" OR "S&M gays of America" OR "DYKES ON BIKES" is it?!?
#5 Psychiatry and the Law "Both are and can be flawed" #6 A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. (IRRELEVENT) NOT IN THE BEST INTREST OF THE CHILD.
I am sorry Ernie, Adoption of children by homosexuals cannot be considered in the best interest of the child.
NO child should be deprived of their natural basic right to have BOTH a Father AND a Mother for the sake of two selfish perverts that place their sexual preference over the needs of the child.
Main Entry: [2]per·vert
Pronunciation: 'p&r-"v&rt
Function: noun
Date: circa 1661
: one that has been perverted; specifically : one given to some form of sexual perversion
Main Entry: [1]per·vert
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&rt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French pervertir, from Latin pervertere to overturn, corrupt, pervert, from per- thoroughly + vertere to turn —more at PER-, WORTH
Date: 14th century
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT
b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : MISDIRECT
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : MISUSE
b : to twist the meaning or sense of : MISINTERPRET synonym see DEBASE
- per·vert·er noun
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
In message 549, the first link you provided included the following comment about the state of research:
"Research data
Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns."
They start by pointing out that "data on long-term outcomes...are very limited."
Suppose that over the next 10 years there is an explosion of research into the topic of gay parenting. Suppose, further, that the researchers involved are considered by your side of this argument to be knowledgeable, honest, trustworthy, fair-minded people of integrity.
Then, suppose the research results DO NOT SUPPORT your present position. Would you then post a message on FR saying that you have changed your mind and now believe that gay adoption opponents were wrong?
Almost certainly --- you would NOT!
Why not? Because, in the final analysis, you couldn't care less what research studies show---unless they conform to your current derogatory judgments about gays.
You are very fond of inserting links into your messages and referring to articles and studies but how many of those studies or articles have you actually read? And, then, what independent research did you do?
For example: if Paul Cameron cites some specific item to substantiate a negative conclusion, did you then obtain a copy of the material he referenced to determine whether or not Cameron accurately cited it? Or to determine if an alternative interpretation was possible?
Similarly, when you folks accuse scholars and researchers of "bias" or "pushing an agenda" ---- do you ever actually independently research whatever is in dispute? Do you write letters to the researchers to ask questions about their methodology or to request copies of documents? Do you travel to wherever the raw data has been archived so you can review it for yourself to see if the interpretation of data was honest and credible--albeit not favorable to your views?
Or do you simply start with a conclusion (i.e. gays are perverted) and then search the Internet for anything that coincides with your conclusion---so that you can insert that link into your next message?
What I find amazing is the extent to which you accuse researchers of "bias" and "pushing an agenda". Apparently, you believe that these folks are in some sort of conspiracy, and that they are all chronic, habitual, and pathological liars.
Let me ask you this:
Can you identify 2 or 3 researchers into gay issues that you consider honorable, decent, honest, legitimate scholars---even though their articles or books contradict your point of view?
OR, is it your position that ALL truthful, factual material about gays originates from YOUR SIDE of this argument?
That, somehow, every single researcher that specializes in fields pertaining to the topics we have discussed (psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, social workers, medical doctors, etc. etc.) and who presents what you perceive as pro-gay results is ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, unreliable, biased, and incapable of discovering and accurately reporting data?