Yahoo Bot wrote:I disagree with the report's methodology. I applaud it because it presents the other side's views with some sort of reasoned methodology, disagreeable or not, so at least we have some cogent discourse going on. My personal view is that it doesn't matter if parents are gay or straight (or single for that matter), but it matters if the parental relationship isn't stable, and it matters if they aren't religious.
That gives me an idea. I will do a study on Mormons, and I will use flawed methodologies to show that Mormons are more likely to molest. That will really help get some "cogent discourse" going on won't it? I mean after all it's important for the "other side" to get their views known. Even if those views are the product of bad metholodology.
Sammy Jankins wrote:That gives me an idea. I will do a study on Mormons, and I will use flawed methodologies to show that Mormons are more likely to molest. That will really help get some "cogent discourse" going on won't it? I mean after all it's important for the "other side" to get their views known. Even if those views are the product of bad metholodology.
I completely agree.
Thus, as the methodology flaws become known, it is possible to discredit the report, as I do for the reports cited in the opening thread.
Somehow I think the success lies in having a stable family relationship, with no turnover of parents (i.e., divorce or separation) plus a religious environment or some equivalent one which installs strong moral values. Many of my Jewish and Islamic friends seem to possess those characteristics in their families. As well as Mormon and Evangelical friends. My atheist friends, I observe, not so much.
My goodness! Either Yahoo Bot doesn't have any Catholic friends, or else he rates them right down there with us evil atheists as failures in childrearing.
(Making that joke is perhaps preferable to the alternative post that suggested itself about my likely failure to instil (I think he really meant that word) strong moral values in my kids. I do so hate bad language.)
Well, at least my kids have a tendency to tell the truth, and perhaps may even continue to do so when posting on message boards. Unlike some.
Yahoo Bot wrote: I don't think that I've ever insulted you or treated you in an evil matter. I could be wrong; it has been so many years, but today that is my belief. You're a good guy sticking up for Mr. Eric.
My post on this thread did not address truth telling or lying, I do believe.
I'd like to have heard more about the Catholics, though.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:I'd like to have heard more about the Catholics, though.
I have only the greatest respect for the family structures of the Catholic faith. I'm sorry to have left them out of my post.
Mormons don't have a lock on good family relations, and too many of them have insular beliefs to not realize that.
But, I stick to my view that religious families are likely to be better for raising children than irreligious families. And, of course, I believe that LDS families do it better.
Yahoo Bot wrote: ... But, I stick to my view that religious families are likely to be better for raising children than irreligious families. ...
Interesting. Will any religion do? Or is there some kind of 'magic circle' of religions that get you into the Good Parenting Club?
And does it count as a negative feature of parenting if you teach your children to believe in things that are not true? I mean, not all religions are true, right?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yahoo Bot wrote: I disagree with the report's methodology. I applaud it because it presents the other side's views with some sort of reasoned methodology, disagreeable or not, so at least we have some cogent discourse going on. My personal view is that it doesn't matter if parents are gay or straight (or single for that matter), but it matters if the parental relationship isn't stable, and it matters if they aren't religious.
Can you elaborate? What view? In almost all instance, the children with a gay parent, were the offspring of a heterosexual union that failed. Mormon bishops used to encourage gay men to marry women and have children. The study would seem to suggest that this view was a recipe for disaster.
What lessons do you think should we take from this study?
Jaybear wrote: Can you elaborate? What view? In almost all instance, the children with a gay parent, were the offspring of a heterosexual union that failed. Mormon bishops used to encourage gay men to marry women and have children. The study would seem to suggest that this view was a recipe for disaster.
What lessons do you think should we take from this study?
I take no lessons other than that the somebody has finally come up with a statistical study which says that children of gay parents are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents.
Do I agree with the conclusion? I don't know what to think on it one way or the other. My anecdotal experience says, "no," but my social relationship with gay parents are with highly educated types who go out of their way to adopt or obtain by natural means children.
Jaybear wrote: Can you elaborate? What view? In almost all instance, the children with a gay parent, were the offspring of a heterosexual union that failed. Mormon bishops used to encourage gay men to marry women and have children. The study would seem to suggest that this view was a recipe for disaster.
What lessons do you think should we take from this study?
I take no lessons other than that the somebody has finally come up with a statistical study which says that children of gay parents are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents. Do I agree with the conclusion? I don't know what to think on it one way or the other.
If Yahoo Bot was doing this kind of slithering around in court, I suppose I'd just sigh and say that there were worse ways of earning a living. But to do it for nothing except the pleasure of being perverse?
Well, a sad waste of talent, I'd say.
The study cited was crap, and certainly did not show what bcspace claimed. Anyone who bothers to look at the critiques made of it can see that. Including Yahoo Bot, who is fast becoming a candidate for the Ignore (Foe) feature.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: The study cited was crap, and certainly did not show what bcspace claimed. Anyone who bothers to look at the critiques made of it can see that. Including Yahoo Bot, who is fast becoming a candidate for the Ignore (Foe) feature.
I'd support that.
Like I say, I've never said anything of an ill nature about you or to you. I'm sorry I hold the line that Mormon doctrine is superb to anything else and that being in a Mormon family is the only way to exaltation.
I've got to say that I don't see the slithering. If Yahoo Bot is of the opinion that all studies of this type are unreliable, then it seems to me his positions as expressed here are pretty consistent. I don't see anything inconsistent between applauding someone for at least trying to bring relevant evidence to bear on the issue even if he personally doesn't think evidence of that type is worth much.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951