ans Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 So how does this prove me wrong? you have backed up my argument. Quite how you didn't win troll of the year is beyond me. I have to believe you're trolling because I just can't accept that you're that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 So how does this prove me wrong? you have backed up my argument. Quite how you didn't win troll of the year is beyond me. I'm glad to see that as a moderator, you had nothing to do with the recent MF Awards. What makes it better i suppose, is that despite you posting within the topic, you didn't look at the results, posted by your fellow moderator. Who's the ignorant one now?? Just incase you didn't know, you won moderator of the year! congrats ans! I have no idea why... but some members out there must have a sense of humour. As pointless as the MF results are, here they are again... just so you can read them this time: Poster of the Year - Mr SausagesBest Humorous Thread - Chopley Gets Nicked Best Serious Thread - [Tied]BNP Leaflets and Election Results Best Moderator - ans Best Joke - How do you get a fat bird into bed Best Troll - DjDan Best Blog Entry - A Neverending Story Best Picture - Kitesurfing Dec '06 Best Writing Forum Submission - A Quiet Christmas I hope your acumen isn't a reflection on the moderating team as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 A well deserved award, and I see you're making a strong case for a repeat in the 2007 awards with your contributions to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 A well deserved award, and I see you're making a strong case for a repeat in the 2007 awards with your contributions to this thread. haha, people dislike me because i present a view which is contrary to their own. If i went around disliking every person who complained about my religious views... i'd be living a very sad life indeed. People (as you) need to accept that people in the world often have different ideas to themselves. In this topic, i have presented 'the other' view.. in which I am not alone. In this topic, the only thing you have done, is try and find fault with my postings. The only one 'trolling' in this topic is you. I have been contributing to the topic - can the same be said of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 ^ and what does that prove? That only just under 6% of all children in care are adopted currently. Yet you seem to think that 'normal' people are falling over themselves to adopt. Why be so blinkered and close minded as to completely discount a significant portion of the population for no apparent reason other than you can't see further than the end of your own homophobic nose. To save you the humiliation of scratching your head with paper and pen trying to work out the sum, the graph shows that over 94% of children in care are successfully adopted. Yeah, the adoption system is in no way in need of people willing to offer loving homes to children without them. ans your math is worse than mine. It shows that 6% of children in care are adopted annually, not 94%. It shows 94% are not adopted. However that may be for good resaon. Social Services child care intervention starts with one prime aim, in theory, the maintenance of the family unit and the integration of the child back home. Most children in care, or fosterd are there temporarily untilk the family unit can be strengthened to be reintegrated. Lots of those children are not even condsiderd for adoption because its a last resort when the family can never be re integrated as for the research results I won't post the one that shows that Mormons make the worst parents, because they indoctrinate their children to be little mormons. It doesn't exist. But it easily could. Set off with small samples and be careful how you choose your definition of success or failure and its really easy. All I have to do is choose 100 mormon parents, 100 non mormon parents and compare how many end up with mormon children. The deciding factor being that being a mormon child is bad. Eysenk made them up after all to show that blacks were dimmer than whites. The orthodox study criticised small groups, non randomisation, and no control group for comparison and then did all three of those things. It then set out to spin its results. 11% males report a homosexual experience. (not in any test it had carried out) One male child had a relationship with another male out of 8, thats 13%. then present iit as 5 0r 6 times the percentage who are alleged to be exclusively gay (not that they tested that either). Not comparing like with like. Its 11% against 13% if you do that. That is not statistically significant in that sample size. If it had beenone out of two familise then it would have been 50%. The sample size is too small. And where was the control for those results, there wasn't one. Result just as invalid as the results criticised for poor research technique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 And now for some law In UK it is probably illegal for adoption societies to discriminate already their duty is to find the empirically best adopters for children in their care. Notions of faith, belief etc just don't come into it. But presumably nothing in law says that they've got to continue operating an adoption agency if the proposed new rules and regs go against their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 A little more study:http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php It is always a problem when scientists disagree, and even more problematic when issues are politicised. I agree it is likely that both sides attempt to distort the science for there own ends. The person you are citing has been specifically accused of distorting and misrepresenting academic research see link and below. His Phd is in theology and he is a member of a right wing US think tank. When I read such background information I hope you understand why I am suspicious of his claims. I would rather trust the American Psychiatric Association to review the information than a right wing think tank. June 10, 2002Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D. FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 801 G Street N.W. Washington, DC 2001 Dear Dr. Dailey: On the web site www.frc.org you reference my work in your article on "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse". I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper. If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female) — from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate — than heterosexual males. Your statement that "the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners" appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male's sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual. Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views. Yours truly, A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 ans your math is worse than mine. It shows that 6% of children in care are adopted annually, not 94%. It shows 94% are not adopted. Yes, just a typo sorry. The 94% left unadopted was the point I was trying to make also. I've corrected it now after a prod from someone else but didn't realise anyone had noticed and replied in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. What about the immaculate conception? Who will look after baby Jesus now? Will it be Joseph and his friend, but also his lover, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 dwatterson and Lonan3 I don't know what to make about this. You both seem to be stating that you don't think a gay couple is capable of raising a child. I still don't understand this at all. It's the no never attitude I just don't get - and what I condemn. No, you clearly don't understand what we're saying. I have never said "no never." Nor have I ever stated that I "don't think a gay couple is capable of raising a child." Please do not try to edit my opinions and present them in a way in which they were very definitely not intended. My contention is that the first option for the process of adoption ought to be a unit consisting of a male and a female in a long term relationship (although I accept that such a thing cannot be guaranteed either in mixed or same-sex relationships). Only in cases where such a couple cannot be found (and I believe that there is a huge waiting list of parents wanting to adopt - the slowness of the whole process being the major reason for the changes in the law rather than the absence of such people), should people involved in same-sex relationships be considered. That is my opinion. The fact that it happens to agree with the views of the Roman Catholic church (which I despise), the Church of England (which is a ridiculous organisation trying to be all things to all men), the religion of Islam (on which I'm probably not allowed to express my views in case they're deemed inflammatory) and DjDan (Troll of the year) is totally immaterial. They are my views and I am convinced that this is simply another example of a weak government that is too easily swayed by small but vociferous factions presenting itself as having a caring social conscience. And just to reassure Albert Tatlock - my opinion is not based on religeous belief, any assumption of moral superiority to anyone else - and anyone who accused me of being a middle-class Conservative had better have their running shoes on! John Wright Yesterday, 05:37 PM The sheer fact that we have had a couple centuries of nuclear and extended families should not be allowed to blind us to the fact that there are successful alternatives capable of delivering qulaity child care and balanced young adults, just as there are many conventional couples and singles who are not. And just to point that this kind of sloppy dismissal of the nuclear family (not the first time its been done in this thread) is simply a matter of making an opinion sound like fact. The continuity and stability of the nuclear family in north western Europe is remarkable. Certainly in England there is good evidence for its presence in the fourteenth century, and one cannot say that any social function which the nuclear family was playing was any less developed then than in 1700. Moreover, the institution has largely survived the Industrial Revolution into the twenty-first century. MacCulloch, D., Reformation - Europe's House Divided 1490-1700 (2003) p.616 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Maybe if we stopped for just one year being so self satisfying in popping out mewling mouths all over the place we could start to give a better lives to those already here. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Maybe if we stopped for just one year being so self satisfying in popping out mewling mouths all over the place we could start to give a better lives to those already here. Just a thought... Ah, but then you'd be discriminating against the catholic divine right to have sex without a condom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Secondly, do I need to teach you how a child is born?? - Female & Male. Maybe if we stopped for just one year being so self satisfying in popping out mewling mouths all over the place we could start to give a better lives to those already here. Just a thought... Ah, but then you'd be discriminating against the catholic divine right to have sex without a condom Ah and may I be smote down for that one....man I hate religious smugness in all its forms!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I just cannot bear the thought that, if our children were to be orphaned, they might be adopted by a homosexual couple. I try not to imagine that one day, a little twelve year old boy, still missing his Mummy and Daddy, might find himself in a house where two men sleep together and practice homosexuality. To my family the thought is utterly dreadful. I have a perfect right to exercise my point of view in accordance with my religion and no one is going to take that away from me. Furthermore I have a right to stipulate what I want for my children. However, in the UK that right has now been taken away from families like ours. The return of catholic persecution is upon us and it's a terrfying scenario. The UK Government is outlawing religious beliefs bit by bit and its time for the fight back to begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 No, you clearly don't understand what we're saying. I have never said "no never." My contention is that the first option for the process of adoption ought to be a unit consisting of a male and a female in a long term relationship (although I accept that such a thing cannot be guaranteed either in mixed or same-sex relationships). Only in cases where such a couple cannot be found (and I believe that there is a huge waiting list of parents wanting to adopt - the slowness of the whole process being the major reason for the changes in the law rather than the absence of such people), should people involved in same-sex relationships be considered. That is my opinion. Thanks for the clarification, but this seems to result is the 51% 91% problem I alluded to earlier, do you accept that there must be a point when an adoption committee goes: these people are acceptable the adoption should go ahead. Or do you say they always must wait for the hetro-sexual couple to come along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.