Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so you can say or misunderstand anything in a debate with out reproach? you totally misrepresented a simple point somebody made and we are not permitted to ask why?
you have also accused me of making irrelevant points, before i even make the point? am i not permitted to question the sudden appearance of your clairvoyance?
you are also unwilling to an ...[text shortened]... to figure out if you agree with the whole study, most of the study, the key points or one point.

I did not compile the study I merely cited it as evidence. I am not the study.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not compile the study I merely cited it as evidence. I am not the study.

did you know the study was investigated by the university it was originated from? did you know they thought the methods used made the study meaningless. did you know the author of the study himself has admitted he cherry picked the data. did you know that his own conclusion with in the study says he was unable to say precisely if there was any correlation between to the data or if it was coincidental.

the main flaw in his study was him not comparing like for like. for example he only used hetrosexuals in successful marriages, but included homosexuals who had been in hetrosexual relationships that had broken down.

there are many other flaws with the study. it doesnt take long to find them, especially as the author is honest enough to admit that his findings are not accurate.

i shouldnt have to do all this for you, the fact that you dont look at this....or read the study fully (as you would know he dismisses his own findings). it just gives the impression you are not bothered about the truth you will just stick up anything you think supports you.


before you put up a study, i put up one that looks at a huge collection of other studies which all defend homosexual parents. yet you stand by a study that openly admits its failings above a highly respected study that has no controversy? how strange.

are you going to explain to me why my question earlier was irrelevant?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not compile the study I merely cited it as evidence. I am not the study.

if a study came out that proved beyond doubt that homosexuals were just as good as hetrosexuals at being parents would you change your mind regarding homosexuals adopting children.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You would think gays were streaming out of their closets to adopt children the way you harp on.

What relevance does that have to anything I've posted?

What we are discussing is your belief that you would rather have children remain in care instead of being adopted by same sex couples. It's been demonstrated, by numerous studies from various countries, that living in care has a significantly detrimental effect on childrens well being. This is well documented on the Wikipedia link I provided. In response to this all I've had from you is a ridiculous straw man and now some deflection.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if a study came out that proved beyond doubt that homosexuals were just as good as hetrosexuals at being parents would you change your mind regarding homosexuals adopting children.

another personal viewpoint perspective, sorry dude, uninterested.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What relevance does that have to anything I've posted?

What we are discussing is your belief that you would rather have children remain in care instead of being adopted by same sex couples. It's been demonstrated, by numerous studies from various countries, that living in care has a significantly detrimental effect on childrens well being. This is we ...[text shortened]... In response to this all I've had from you is a ridiculous straw man and now some deflection.

call it what you like, i resent using emotive subjects like children to further your gay parade. Here is what was actually cited,


It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

you will note that the quotation recognises the difficulty that many persons in care face, a far cry from the 'evil beyond reproach', allegation and provided reasons why same sex adoption may not be in the best interests of a child.


"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

when will you admit it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another personal viewpoint perspective, sorry dude, uninterested.

what? its a study of a collection of scientific papers all supporting homosexual parents......are they all personal viewpoints?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another personal viewpoint perspective, sorry dude, uninterested.

are j.w's able to study at degree level and above?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are j.w's able to study at degree level and above?

yes my friend had a first class honours degree in mathematics from Glasgow university, i told you the other day, how do you think he got it, fell in the Clyde and came up with it in his pocket? My other friends wife is a doctor, how do you think she got her qualifications?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes my friend had a first class honours degree in mathematics from Glasgow university, i told you the other day, how do you think he got it, fell in the Clyde and came up with it in his pocket? My other friends wife is a doctor, how do you think she got her qualifications?

to achieve a degree you need to show the ability to read and understand scientific papers. to show understanding you need to be able to translate your understanding into your own words and formulate your own opinions.

how is this possible for a j.w? or are you the only one who is unable to to give a personal opinion on anything?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
to achieve a degree you need to show the ability to read and understand scientific papers. to show understanding you need to be able to translate your understanding into your own words and [b]formulate your own opinions.

how is this possible for a j.w? or are you the only one who is unable to to give a personal opinion on anything?[/b]

there is a difference between attaining a degree and engaging in debate. Opinions in debate have no place if they cannot be substantiated, all they amount to is, its true because i say its true, ummm, no its not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is a difference between attaining a degree and engaging in debate. Opinions in debate have no place if they cannot be substantiated, all they amount to is, its true because i say its true, ummm, no its not.

agreed, so we try to substantiate them with evidence. you provided a paper written by a sociologist. i asked you your opinion on the paper and you clam up and use the 'dont ask me for my opinion' clap trap. if you can read a paper and write a report on it in your own words then you are able to post a report and write about it in your own words on here. otherwise it looks like you have plastered up the first thing you could find and have not bothered to understand it.....and then have the audacity to ask other people to read it and then formulate opinions against it and provide evidence.
you bang on about empirical evidence but very rarely provide any yourself and on this occasion have failed miserably.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is a difference between attaining a degree and engaging in debate. Opinions in debate have no place if they cannot be substantiated, all they amount to is, its true because i say its true, ummm, no its not.

when you said that a teenager in care is better off in care than being placed with a same sex couple. who's opinion was that?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
when you said that a teenager in care is better off in care than being placed with a same sex couple. who's opinion was that?

you asked me a personal viewpoint question, you did, one can only presume in the hope of getting a personal opinion did you not. If you like i shall retract all personal opinions, it means very little to me and i would be pleased if you proffered some evidence instead on the continual and somewhat tedious exercise of having to answer all your perosnal viewpoint questions.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
agreed, so we try to substantiate them with evidence. you provided a paper written by a sociologist. i asked you your opinion on the paper and you clam up and use the 'dont ask me for my opinion' clap trap. if you can read a paper and write a report on it in your own words then you are able to post a report and write about it in your own words on here. ...[text shortened]... ical evidence but very rarely provide any yourself and on this occasion have failed miserably.

I am uninterested in proffering opinion, i prefer evidence, if evidence is not good enough for you then so be it, its good enough for me.