Arizona same-sex married couples are seeking adoptions

I just went through the citations and only ONE of them was from the 50's. Most of them are from the 90's and 2000's.

Which, by the way, are FAR more recent than the sources that the homosexual Dr. Herek from UC-Davis (that you folks LOVE to source so much) used in his absurd blog posting. Most of those are from the 70's and 80's. But I'm sure you don't consider that out of date do you?

WTH does that have to do with the paper? That's simply an acknowledgment that they tried to get information from South Carolina and were provided it but the information presented therein was too biased to be used. But that doesn't take away from the LOADS of other information that you CLAIM later in this post that you actually would care to see.

Which unbiased pieces of research would that be? The homosexual Dr. Herek who is a self-proclaimed "internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma"? Is that your unbiased source?

That's dishonest as hell. There is NO source that I could provide that you wouldn't claim was biased or right-wing or bigoted or homophobic. Hell I could produce a source from Harvard and you'd declare that was biased. You'll declare ANY source that produces information against homosexuality as being biased because you REFUSE to accept their conclusion regardless of the evidence presented.

No you wouldn't. Or you'd actually look at the statistics that are provided in that study. You'd acknowledge that they can't be refuted and you'd change your stance. But you'll NEVER do that because you REFUSE to accept ANY evidence that could lead someone to the conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to molest children.

Obviously not all homosexuals are that way. I'm sure there are some nice pedophiles who don't want to hurt children and they love children and they don't want any harm to come to them and they'd ONLY do something with a child that's consenting and had the consent of their parents ... but I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about him... I'm concerned about the ABSURD amount of perverts in the group that would cause problems.

If you're one of the good ones then I'm sorry, I hate it for you. But if you want people to stop grouping you in with the bad homosexuals then you need to stop sticking your head in the sand and look at the facts. But you don't want to do that... because the facts paint homosexuality in a bad light.

 

You understand the study shows heterosexuals as the overwhelming vast majority of offenders right?

 

Absolutely... you understand that the overwhelming vast majority of people are heterosexuals right?

 

Just pointing out that you don't give 2 (*)(*)(*)(*)s about children's well being. You only care about lying about statistics in order to try to make homosexuals look bad.

 

No you just don't understand how to use statistics.

We EXPECT a certain level of ANY behavior within a population ... that includes child molestation. So we EXPECT that if heterosexuals represent 95% of the total foster parents then heterosexuals should represent ~95% of the total child molestation of foster kids. We would also expect that if homosexuals represent 5% of total foster parents then homosexuals should represent ~5% of the total child molestation of foster kids.

The REASON I point out homosexuals is because while heterosexuals are UNDER-represented... homosexuals are OVER-represented. Meaning that heterosexuals represent LESS than 95% of the total and homosexuals represent MORE than 5% of the total child molestation of foster kids.

 

YOU are the one making stuff up...you and the FRC. They published the results of a study that was supposedly done by Illinois that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. I presents stats from Illinois that shows that few foster and adoptive parents are reasonable for any type of abuse leave alone sexual abuse. That report is also devoid of any indication that gay or lesbian foster and adoptive parents are the problem as far as what abuse occurs. So where the hell does that stuff come from? Show me.

As far other sources referenced go, quite frankly I did not delve into them. Many appear to be outdated, going back to times when there was little acceptance for homosexuality and when it was even illegal. One thing that the FRC can be counted on is to draw on biased sources and faulty studies. The fact that the data presented that is supposedly from Illinois-which apparently does not exist and which I debunk below- speaks volumes about their lack of credibility.

YOU are ignoring the data that I presented from Illinois. Here is more:

Where the hell is all the sexual abuse by homosexuals?? You are becoming increasingly pathetic and desperate as are all of the bigots who are trying to turn back the tide on equality. Have a good evening. I'm going to spend mine with my wife and not dealing with this bovine excrement. I am at peace with myself. You seem to be tormented trying to justify discrimination with moronic and bogus arguments.

 

YOU are ignoring the data that I presented from Illinois. Here is more:

Where the hell is all the sexual abuse by homosexuals?? You are becoming increasingly pathetic and desperate as are all of the bigots who are trying to turn back the tide on equality. Have a good evening. I'm going to spend mine with my wife and not dealing with this bovine excrement. I am at peace with myself. You seem to be tormented trying to justify discrimination with moronic and bogus arguments.[/QUOTE]

Again, you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up... these are the dates on the sources provided:

1987, 1999, 1978, 1988, 2000, 2000, 2003, 1986, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2001, 1983, 2004, 1988, 1999, 1996, 1978, 1991, 1979, 1994, 1994, 2000, 1994, 1974, 1956, 1988, 1982, 1994, 1994, 1972, 1991

Now lets look at the source list for the homosexual Dr. Herek and the UC-Davis page you LOVE so much and see what dates he used:

1987, 1974, 1975, 1987, 1987, 1990, 2001, 1962, 2000, 1980, 1985, 1977, 1985, 2005, 1986, 1982, 1983, 2006, 1954, 1982, 1991, 1988, 1989, 1995, 1901, 1988, 1989, 1945, 1984, 1986, 1951, 1971, 1905, 1989, 1982, 1991, 1978, 1982, 1982, 1991, 1994, 1978, 1989, 1984, 1998, 1957, 1977, 1994, 1987, 1957, 1976, 1948, 1953, 1989, 1989, 1994, 1994, 1996, 1988, 1988, 1984, 2001, 1998, 2003, 1993, 1978, 1940, 1949, 1980, 1989, 1976, 1991, 1966, 2001, 2001, 2002, 1991, 2000, 1968, 1948, 2006, 2006, 1990, 1949, 1986

I took the liberty of bolding anything before 1970 and turning red anything before 1960

So.... SURELY if the dates from the source I posted are old and out of date and therefore not valid... then CLEARLY the sources that the homosexual Dr. Herek used must be old and out of date and therefore not valid considering that there are FAR more studies he used from before the 70's.

Your sources don't claim I'm wrong your sources simply don't have all the information. Try providing a source that actually has the rates of child sexual abuse of foster kids.

 

Again, you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up... these are the dates on the sources provided:

1987, 1999, 1978, 1988, 2000, 2000, 2003, 1986, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2001, 1983, 2004, 1988, 1999, 1996, 1978, 1991, 1979, 1994, 1994, 2000, 1994, 1974, 1956, 1988, 1982, 1994, 1994, 1972, 1991

Now lets look at the source list for the homosexual Dr. Herek and the UC-Davis page you LOVE so much and see what dates he used:

1987, 1974, 1975, 1987, 1987, 1990, 2001, 1962, 2000, 1980, 1985, 1977, 1985, 2005, 1986, 1982, 1983, 2006, 1954, 1982, 1991, 1988, 1989, 1995, 1901, 1988, 1989, 1945, 1984, 1986, 1951, 1971, 1905, 1989, 1982, 1991, 1978, 1982, 1982, 1991, 1994, 1978, 1989, 1984, 1998, 1957, 1977, 1994, 1987, 1957, 1976, 1948, 1953, 1989, 1989, 1994, 1994, 1996, 1988, 1988, 1984, 2001, 1998, 2003, 1993, 1978, 1940, 1949, 1980, 1989, 1976, 1991, 1966, 2001, 2001, 2002, 1991, 2000, 1968, 1948, 2006, 2006, 1990, 1949, 1986

I took the liberty of bolding anything before 1970 and turning red anything before 1960

So.... SURELY if the dates from the source I posted are old and out of date and therefore not valid... then CLEARLY the sources that the homosexual Dr. Herek used must be old and out of date and therefore not valid considering that there are FAR more studies he used from before the 70's.

Your sources don't claim I'm wrong your sources simply don't have all the information. Try providing a source that actually has the rates of child sexual abuse of foster kids.[/QUOTE]

What the hell is all of this!?? Clearly you are a few fries short of a happy meal. I'm out of here

 

Of course I do. Why do youmthink I'm one of about half a dozen people that keep calling you out for misrepresenting them?

Doing good so far.

and here is the lie. You call anyone who molests a male child a homosexual. When most are in fact heterosexual.

 

The conclusion of most psychologists is that while a "disproportionately" high number of male pedophiles seem to be attracted to young boys, a majority of them come from heterosexual backgrounds, claim to have adult heterosexual attractions, and do not identify as gay, or even bisexual. The general consensus is that most "heterosexual" male pedophiles who sexually abuse young boys (as opposed to engaging in sexual activity with other adult men) are attracted to the soft, feminine, undeveloped features of boys. Therefore it's more likely to be a "heterosexual" thing, even if the act is in fact homosexual.

Gay people as most people understand them - those who are attracted to other adults, or appropriately or similarly aged folk of the same-sex, have absolutely no higher propensity whatsoever towards pedophilia.

 

What the hell is all of this!?? Clearly you are a few fries short of a happy meal. I'm out of here[/QUOTE]

You claimed that the citation list from the source I provided was out of date and therefore not relevant.

But when we look at the source list from my source and then look at the citations from Dr. Herek's UC-Davis blog... those are the results. Dr. Herek's information is FAR more outdated than my source.

But I bet you don't consider his information to be outdated and therefore irrelevant do you?

In other words, you were just making an excuse to not have to deal with the data presented to you.

- - - Updated - - -

That's impossible as I showed you before:

http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/heterosexuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/homosexuality

Just because you ignored the medical definition of those words, doesn't mean that they go away.

 

Again, this is nothing more than an excuse. People want to make this about pedophilia when it's not. Pedophilia is a SUBJECTIVE psychiatric diagnosis that is COMPLETELY dependent upon the child molester's honest answers for an accurate diagnosis.

Furthermore, pedophilia ONLY deals with people who have an exclusive or primary interest in those who are PREPUBESCENT. That means someone could molest a 9 year old and be a pedophile and someone could molest a different 9 year old and NOT be a pedophile because the second 9 year old had already gone through puberty.

We are not discussing pedophilia... the subjective clinical diagnosis that relies upon the honest answers of child molesters. We are discussing child sexual abuse which covers EVERY type of child molestation of ANY child under the age of consent.

But homosexuals don't want to have that debate so they CONTINUOUSLY take it back to the subjective diagnosis of pedophilia because they believe they can deflect blame away from homosexuals by doing so.

 

Actually I don't know what the hell you're taking about here. What I do know is that you completely avoided and ignored the well documented information from the Illinois Department of Children and Families that clearly shows that sexual abuse of any kind is NOT an issue in their foster and adoptive care system, as alleged by FRC

 

Meanwhile, every medical and psychological association as well as every peer reviewed paper and study agree with me.

Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of every issue and debate?

 

If you can't see the difference between the abuse of prepubescent children by predatory adults, and say, a same-sex couple of 17 and 25 where the age of consent in that jurisdiction is 18 - "Romeo and Juliette" situations, there's something seriously wrong with you. OF COURSE it's important to make these distinctions if you want to have a serious discussion on the matter. We know that PEDOPHILES (those attracted to pre-pubescent children) often abuse both genders and see gender as less important (since the turn on itself is children). We also know that the majority of men who abuse prepubescent boys claim to be heterosexual, as I've pointed out. Given this, it's not fair to look at a statistic like "30% of underage sexual abuse victims are male" and go on to say gay people are many times more likely to abuse. That's not the reality at all. The reality is that pedophiles are less likely to find gender important, and male pedophiles who claim to be heterosexual only typically find younger/prepubescent boys attractive.

That's NOT a problem for gay people or the "gay community".

 

Actually, he just pointed out the difference. You seem to be the one with a problem with comprehension.

 

I sincerely doubt he was - but let HIM speak, rather than you chiming in as usual.

The charge/claim he is advocating is the fallacious and ludicrous idea advocated by people like Sec that LGBTs, specifically same-sex couples, are more likely to sexually abuse children because males account for around 30% of such victims. I am saying that "straight" men who have absolutely no place in "gay life", or the "gay community" account for many (if not most) of these cases... Men who say they have no attraction to adult males. The point is, we know that pedophiles have a fixation on CHILDREN, therefore gender is probably a lot less relevant to them. The relatively 'high' % of male abuse victims does NOT prove that same-sex couples, or those with "normal" adult or age-appropriate sexual attraction are more likely to abuse.

 

Actually, as far as Arizona goes, the question of adoption by gay couples is pretty much a moot point:

However, adoption remains an issue in many other states, so let's stick around.

 

Here is another reason to encourage gay folks to adopt. More stability for the children!

 

As much as I am for SSM, I think it's comparing apples to oranges right now. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a very long time. I would wager that the SS divorce rate will eventually equalize itself to near heterosexual marriages.

I think divorce rates have more to do with American culture than with heterosexuality or homosexuality.

 

Quite possibly. Only time will tell.

 

I'm proud of Marianne Bayardi.