You may find the following interesting. It goes a long way to explaining the problems with quality research, as well as identifying genuine issues with gay parenting.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this issue, but that has to be the worst bit of 'science' that I have ever read. It was appalling.

It was published for the far right wing American 'Family Research Council' 10 years ago. Actually, the website's main banner is asking me to register for the 'Premier Conservative Event of the year'.

It's slogan is, ominously, 'Faith, Family and Freedom'. It's a psuedo-religious site, and it's values are based upon that.

And, the paper was awful. It spends its first third saying that all of the research papers into gay marriage and parenting so far should be discounted.

Then it spends the second third making tenuous links to the issue with fairly disparate (and highly questionable - eg. "29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents") figues.

It finishes by fearmongering about what gay marriage would mean and then quoting the Pope!!

You're definitely not a science person, are you Hannabal.

And you don't have to look far to find out why a high percentage of gay people commit suicide ... which apparently is a reason they are 'unsuitable' for parenting.

Church hypocrisy of the worst kind,

Why not?

Religion creates and exacerbates ignorance.

It's non-thought or Sky -god rules made up in the Middle East by beardy wankers .

in the three big Religions , breeding , property and the control of women are the express purpose of marriage .

Whats so Holy about some idiotic pig wanting to marry another.Why should homosexuals be exempt from the delusion of acceptance by churches .

Why should churches pay no tax- especially when the world is so over-populated and they continually tell everyone to breed ?

Middle Eastern religions should be liquidated ,and the money sent to pay for birth control in the Third world .

This would reduce the misery they have created on earth .

The reason for not allowing Gay weddings is so politically and legally , they can be denied rights in regards to property and children .

Most reasonable people would think this is wrong but Religious Muslims or Christians would keep denying them rights -so they can sell marriage

The Tweed Pig tells me marriage is sacrosanct .

Drunk straight hookers and thieves can get married in Vegas any night of the week.

Let homosexuals have the same rights as straight couples.

Why would you be against it?

I'm not see what I said above.

Now if you want to liquidate Middle Eastern religions then i'd be more than happy to vote for that, if the crazies in the Middle east spent more time trying to make a living, planting crops and trying to fit in with the rest of the World then we'd have a lot less blowing up and poverty wouldn't we.

If you happen to be Homosexual in a lot of Middle Eastern Countries you don't get the option of marriage you get the option of either stoning, being thrown of a cliff or bulldozed under a building.

Human Rights, yeah right.

And you don't have to look far to find out why a high percentage of gay people commit suicide ... which apparently is a reason they are 'unsuitable' for parenting.

Church hypocrisy of the worst kind,

One of the main reasons young male Homosexuals commit suicide is non acceptance by their parents and friends at school, some parents just cannot cope and the kids just feel hopelessly alone and abandoned. There is a larger % in the Country areas than in the city also.

You may find the following interesting. It goes a long way to explaining the problems with quality research, as well as identifying genuine issues with gay parenting.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

If you are doing this purely to [censored] stir it's very disappointing.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this issue, but that has to be the worst bit of 'science' that I have ever read. It was appalling.

It was published for the far right wing American 'Family Research Council' 10 years ago. Actually, the website's main banner is asking me to register for the 'Premier Conservative Event of the year'.

It's slogan is, ominously, 'Faith, Family and Freedom'. It's a psuedo-religious site, and it's values are based upon that.

And, the paper was awful. It spends its first third saying that all of the research papers into gay marriage and parenting so far should be discounted.

Then it spends the second third making tenuous links to the issue with fairly disparate (and highly questionable - eg. "29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents") figues.

It finishes by fearmongering about what gay marriage would mean and then quoting the Pope!!

You're definitely not a science person, are you Hannabal.

Here comes the Ballboy !! The grown-ups are playing tennis, but rest assured the Ballboy will be at the net ready to pounce on an errant shot. If I started a thread, "Why Martians aren't green" it wouldn't be long before the Boy started waddling down the internet highway. Bully for you, Boy.

"It was published for the far right wing American 'Family Research Council' 10 years ago."

Your point being ? Because it's from "the far right" doesn't invalidate all, if any, of its content. Do you think such a study would be conducted by Maurie's left wing hairy armpitted wife, or more likely a right wing Christian group ? If a right wing group didn't publish it then who would ? Bob Brown, or Christine Milne ? Sure.

"the website's main banner is asking me to register for the 'Premier Conservative Event of the year"

I'm free that night.

"It's slogan is, ominously, 'Faith, Family and Freedom'. It's a psuedo-religious site, and it's values are based upon that."

So ? And what is "ominous" about it ? Do you think anything with a religious link is automatically discredited ?

"And, the paper was awful."

In your opinion.

"It spends its first third saying that all of the research papers into gay marriage and parenting so far should be discounted."

Its first third ? No. It argues that there's unreasonable bias in much of the preceding research. Can you disprove this ? I'll be interested in your response.

"Then it spends the second third making tenuous links to the issue with fairly disparate (and highly questionable - eg. "29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents") figues."

It covers many things and you're merely cherry picking.

You'll also note that in this thread I've made the point that I see no correlation between molestation and gay parents.

"It finishes by fearmongering about what gay marriage would mean and then quoting the Pope!!"

Wowee ! A right wing American report with Christian links referred to the Pope ? Front page news !

Bobby, this may be difficult for you to grasp, but I'll press on. I found this piece after the thread was started. I wondered whether there was much literature out there on this topic, but during a very quick search came to the conclusion that there wasn't. The link I posted seemed more in-depth than most of the content I was reading. I could have posted a link to theories that supported gay parenting as there were a few, but as I'm opposed to it that wouldn't have made much sense. Do you think that the links that support gay parenting would have had less bias ? Hmmm. I can see you now riding into town about to criticize one of Maurie's links that support gay marriage due to unreasonable bias. Yeah, right.

Because a study supports the author's view doesn't mean that all of its contents are distorted, or erroneous. Or do you think it does ? I look forward to your response. The report had copious amounts of detail, yet you cherry pick and ultimately dismiss all of its contents as right wing fanaticism. You're as disigenuous as the left. Hmmm.

"You're definitely not a science person, are you Hannabal."

I've never purported to be and I don't need to be. And on this forum I'm Wolfy, not Hannabal (God rest her soul).

As an aside:

I went upstairs last night and my wife was watching "US wife swap" on Foxtel. Coincidentally it was about a right wing Christian family swapping Mothers with a Lesbian women who had a partner and one child. The Christian Mother was cringeworthy. She disgracefully called the other family depraived and stated that she was most unhappy that her daughter had been put in a predatory situation with the lesbian woman. I was appalled. Her husband seemed nice enough, but he allowed his wife to go unchallenged in her views, which greatly disappointed me.

I then told my wife about this thread. She looked at me aghast and said, "It's a football forum". I said that they also have a general forum. She still looked aghast and repeated, "It's a football forum". Hmmm. I sheepishly wandered off.

Edited August 21, 201114 yr by Lone Wolf

If you are doing this purely to [censored] stir it's very disappointing.

WTF are you talking about ? Unless, of course, you're taken in by the Ballboy's disingenuous spin.

Do you think such a study would be conducted by Maurie's left wing hairy armpitted wife, or more likely a right wing Christian group ? If a right wing group didn't publish it then who would ? Bob Brown, or Christine Milne ? Sure.

A credible scientific journal would be a good start, Hanna.

A credible scientific journal would be a good start, Hanna.

Explain why it's not credible and provide a scientific journal that supports your view that there is no adverse effects on a child.

People can probably stick it up their asses if they don't appreciate and achnowledge homosexuality

Personally, I think the word "marriage" is for christians whom go to church. Or not.

But 'marriage' can be an equally legally option for all, and can be enshrined in Australian legislation.

Just don't ask the Pope to marry you in his church!

Hi ya all

Long time reader of this site, virgin poster.

I have to say I've never gone into the 'Gen Discussion' before and I'm impressed by all discussions in all forums

I was impelled to sign up to contribute to this discussion. Regardless of all your views on this topic there is a general level of respect for each persons views. GOOD STUFF

I'll come out of the closet and say I'm an open gay man and think I can contribute to this discussion. I maybe gay but it does not define me. I'm an average Joe Blow generally.

I don't believe in marriage at all! Man, women gay or straight! But I do know how it feels not to be given the rights that white straight middle class ppl have in this country

This issue is not about left or right wing politics. Gay ppl are represented in both sides of politics and in and/or out of the church. I think I can speak for my community to say all we ask for is the right to have equal access to services and institutions in society.

In regards to gay marriage or civil union, most gay ppl believe in their right to choose. I choose the defacto route. Many ppl here have the assumption that gay ppl are not religious. Not true many gays are very religious and have very close bonds to their god and church. Marriage and church are very close to their hearts, more so than some straight ppl. I think to deny their right to marry in ther church is deny what believe to be a human right. Many sections of churches and religions believe this too. Religion and the church are not fundamentally against gay rights. It's the ppl in power who makes these decisions. It does not make it right IMO.

Why should gay ppl who are fundamentally more religious than yourself be denied a very personal issue, the right to connect to their chosen person to marry in their church. It seems hypocritical that ppl who aren't very religious be allowed to marry in the church

I do believe gay ppl should to allowed to legally connect either via defacto or civil union. It annoys me that if my partner was in hospital seriously Ill, that I cannot be their legal guardian. My partners family would be, and I would not be involved in critical decisions. This is wrong especially if his family rejected him due to his sexuality. His family could take my family house and half of our finances if he died. This is wrong but this is the current legal status. Basic rights I see this.

Some have made the assumptions that kids would be worse of being loved by gay parents. I can say I would have been better off as I would not had the personal struggles if gay relationships were normalised. And I come frome an extremely loving family. Kids don't not care for a mum and dad or dad and dad or mum and mum. They care for love and security. My nieces love me and don't care who I love! They want me to love them, care for them and be secure with me. I'm not sexually permiscuos or effeminate. The gay community are just as diverse as the straight community. We have long lasting relationship and are very functional ppl and well as being dysfunctional. We can provide love and stability just as well as you!!

If nature says we can't have kids, it's not entirely true. I could father I child if I wanted. I can have sex with a women and get her pregnant If I chose to manipulate the situation, but why do that Coz society forces me to. I could love an un wanted child just as easily. If nature is a relevant argument IVF should be banned to barren ppl. Nature has already decided their fate. Nature has decided pregnancy can be manipulated thru IVF. science don't discriminate ppl do

Ok this is a long winded post. I'll end off with that it's people who who deny rights. Denying rights is what ppl do to control others. Control leads to ppl being bashed and killed. Every society does this. Don't think our society is any different. I had a friend who was bashed and killed walking out of a gay club. You may be more liberal in your thinking, but any denial of a human right is fundamentally a issue of controlling behavior

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Demonsterative