Topic: Let's face it -- just because you CAN have children doesn't mean you SHOULD. - page 2. (Read 1910 times)

there are more gay couples willing to adopt because they can't have their own children
what's questionable about that?


it's not about the religious maniacs, it's about making gay mainstream
number of homosexuals has probably grew at least 2000% in the last 200 years since it became globaly accepted
therefore decreasing reproduction of humans and making less and less people in every country
there's an increased chance their children will be gay too since they see it as a normal thing and again they will not have new children decreasing birth rate even more
less people --> weaker country

No I didn't. I said they may be correct. They may have been correct since I was about to leave the office and didn't have time to check them. But since they weren't entirely central to my point, it didn't matter too much.


This is where you are wrong. But to be fair, it's a fairly common error. If you're not trained in statistics and probability, you're always going to make these kinds of mistakes. If you wanted to demonstrate that same-sex foster parents were 20 times more likely to sexually abuse children in their care than male-female couples, there is only 1 way to do it: sample a large number of same-sex foster families and a large number of male-female foster families, and compare abuse rates.

The route you're taking is a mixture of inductive error and baseless assumption.

Let me give you an example:


It's actually around a fifth. 1 in 5 girls are the victim of abuse, compared to 1 in 20 boys. But that's irrelevant. What's the assumption/error that you're making here? Anyone spot it?

You're assuming that you are homosexual if you commit a sex crime against a boy. That is simply not the case. But you wouldn't know that because you are cherry picking statistics you like from a homophobic hate site. The simple fact is that most adult men who molest boys do not show any sexual interest in adult men.

I'm not even touching on how you have fallen into the sampling bias heffalump trap.

That's just stupid.

What im triying to say is that in first place he shouldnt have left the boy alone, chained or without chains.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the most important issue is a child being left alone at home when he was fucking chained up? How the fuck can you just brush that off?

The fact that the child was restrained is what makes it more sensational news. The most important issue is that he left the 6 year old home alone. I guess he felt that, given the two options, restraining the child was safer than not restraining him. However, it's hard to believe that someone who lives in a middle class neighborhood couldn't think of a better option

broken condom child

Stop this hypocrisy.

You have already agreed to these facts:

2. Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
3. Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

If a group which comprises 1% of the total population is committing 33% of a particular crime, what does that mean? FRC may not be a reliable source. But it doesn't matter anyway, as you have already agreed with points #2 and #3.

What you cite doesn't back up what you are saying. It's a pretty poor understanding of statistics.

(1) is correct.

(2) may be correct.

(3) may be correct.

Here's where it gets fuzzy.

(4) Yes, but this doesn't indicate causality, nor does it give any reliable indicator of how likely an adult is to abuse a child.

(5) No content

(6) No content.

You then go on to say:

"And gay couples are 20 times likely to abuse their foster children, compared to the straight parents."

This is simply a poor understanding of statistics.

And furthermore, you cite the FRC. The FRC!! It is the FRC's position that, and I quote, "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed", the FRC that spent money trying to block congressional condemnation of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the FRC that has been listed as a homophobic hate group!

Now, there is a valid discussion to be had on same sex foster parenting, but citing the FRC isn't the way to do it. It's like citing Stormfront to illustrate what is wrong with Jews.

I had earlier posted the research journal papers on the subject here. Right now I can't find them, so I'll post a few others.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

1. Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
2. Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
3. Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
4. Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
5. Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
6. Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture. Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

Woop! There we go! That's the kind of brainwashed bullshit I was waiting for! Now note everybody how people like Bryant Coleman never provide convincing research and evidence to back up their claims but insist they're completely correct, in fact, I can guarantee that just because people will question him on it he's going to get into a several page long argument about it without citing any kind of historical data or the ones that he does will be heavily skewed or suffer from lack of even the most basic bits of mathematics like most politically biased polls do.

They are the lowest of the low. If you look at their history there was a time when the Phelps family was a lot more enlightened.

I am sorry to hear that you have to deal with being bipolar. My cousin is the same way. We live in different states now but he still calls me when he gets "that way." That is a really tough hand to be dealt.

Citations, citations, citations.

And gay couples are 20 times likely to abuse their foster children, compared to the straight parents. More than one-third of all the child abuse is homosexual in nature, despite gays constituting to no more than 1-2% of the total population.

The church's tax benefits should be yanked as well, these fuckers are loaded. Why should we give them billions of dollars?




I know I shouldn't have children because I'm bipolar making it likely they'll be bipolar. We really don't need any more maniacs and depressed people around.

That's probably true. I figure in any large community, you're going to get the crazies that make everybody else look bad. That's one reason I think the Westboro Baptist Church's non-profit status should be yanked. They aren't even a church really. They're just a bunch of inbred whackos.

Oh don't worry, you'll soon find out what the big deal with gay couples is once the religious maniacs come along that slink around this board, as usual, it's not the stories themselves that bother me anymore as much, it's the comments from other people.

Ditto. There have been times when I wondered what the big deal was with gay marriage anyhow. Let them get married, let them adopt kids if they want kids, problem solved. As long as you're not flinging your private life into my face, I'm happy...

i wonder what the statistics on heterosexual couples that adopt kids vs. gay.. i'm willing to bet that there are more gay couples willing to adopt. it's one of the reasons why i support gays and gay marriage.

plenty of kids to adopt who need homes, same with pets.