A recent letter to the editor implied children would be more likely to be sexually abused or confused in a homosexual family, and at the highest risk of emotional peril, than in a heterosexual one. My own experience and studies tend to discredit these generalized opinions.
Blah, Blah, Blah... -- generalized opinion = conventional wisdom = common law = enacted law
If the legislature wishes to set limits on who can adopt, then make the limits fact- and science- based, not based on emotion and the leftover bigotry of our childhoods. If the proposed adoptive parents have characteristics that thorough scientific study has shown to be detrimental to the children, then so limit them. No one has produced any credible studies supporting the outright legislative ban on homosexual adoption.
Blah, Blah, Blah... -- The law exists now -no proof necessary to maintain it...
Such are the moral relative, anecdotal, and delusional arguments coming from the left...
Point -there are no legitimate scientific studies possible in regards to "homosexuality" as an innate condition as there is no measurement possible -no way to identify a "homosexual". All that is available is subjective behavioral psychology -the study of behavior.
I have yet to see a study that suggests engaging in homosexual activity is beneficial to society OR that exposing children to those engaging in homosexual activity is nothing less than psychological abuse of innocent children.
If the homosexual activists wish to kick conventional wisdom to the curb THEN the burden lies squarely upon their shoulders to scientifically prove anything and plead the case for homosexual activity.
The reality of conventional wisdom is a proved commodity that is in place right now -homosexuality is a disorder that breeds disorder. If the homosexual activists can argue the "we were born this way; accept our chosen activity" position -- THEN society can claim the same.
Society was born this way -society is this way -society rewards health, order, and procreation; society discriminates against disease and penalizes disorder. Society rightly considers homosexual activity as unhealthy and disordered and will continue to do so.
Homosexual activists would do better to either choose not to engage in activities that society will always condemn or accept the reality that the activities they choose to engage in will always be condemned by society.
Attempting to fabricate facts and sell delusion will never work...
Here is a link to a document that addresses the "studies" & "research":
A 129 page Adobe Acrobat document:
It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes no difference whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have demonstrated this.
An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion. The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.
The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).
Each chapter of the evaluation describes and evaluates how the studies utilized one of these research steps. Along the way, Lerner and Nagai offer pointers for how future studies can be more competently done. Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:
- Unclear hypotheses and research designs
- Missing or inadequate comparison groups
- Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
- Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
- Samples too small to yield meaningful results
- Missing or inadequate statistical analysis
Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all fortynine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.
Four Appendices follow. Appendix 1 is a bibliography of the studies and related publications. Appendix 2 is a table that summarizes the evaluation of each of the studies with regard to each research step. Appendix 3 (by William C. Duncan) is an overview of how these studies have been used in the law. Appendix 4 (by Kristina Mirus) describes how the media has covered these studies.
BTTT. BTTT, and BTTT again!
The homosexual activists who are writing to the bar are trying to portray ALL reason to oppose homosexual access to adoptive children as mere religion.
This is the "big lie" theory in action and it is being used against the FL bar.
There are no opposing letters. No contrary points of view are allowed. One of the editors of the Bar News is a big supporter of homosexual rights and homosexuals adopting children.
The Bar News turns around and says they don't get many letters opposing homosexuals adopting children.