Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

There is no flaw. You cannot experiment on people. More so you cannot experiment on children.

Denying same sex couples the right to adopt children IS experimenting on children. When you prevent a child from having the benefit of growing up in a loving adoptive (same sex) family because of your belief that such is not beneficial to the child, you are experimenting on that child in exactly the same way as allowing such adoption is 'experimenting'.

You are a supporter of nature and evolution,

Sorry but that to me is a ridiculous claim. I am not a 'supporter' of the sun rising east - it just does and I recognise this fact. If you mean I am supporter of the theory of evolution as an explanation for how humans (and indeed all life prevalent on earth currently) came to be then yes I am such a supporter because I believe it provides the most sound and compelling explanation we have theorised to date and certainly I find it more convincing than say alternatives like 'intelligent design'.

use your logic as to why nature through millions of years of evolution does not provide for hermaphrodite production of children by gays or lesbians. I mean if nature wanted them to have children it should at least provide of ONE such incident among millions if not billions of lesbians and gays over the years.

Nature does not 'want' anything, it just is. The variations in nature of ways of reproducing are vast and wondrous in their own right and most certainly are not limited to sexual reproduction between male and female alone. That nature has not evolved a means for same sex humans to produce their own offspring does not as far as I can see constitute any sort of proof that children brought up in same sex families suffer as a result vs those brought up in different sex families ?

------------

Do I know for an absolute fact that children bought up in same sex families do not suffer as a result of this ? No I do not. It is my belief but I accept it is just such - a belief. I also recognise it is a fact that the consensus opinion of relevant professionals also believe the same thing. I recognise that this consensus view of said professionals may be wrong and that Dr. Regnerus (and you) could be right, I just think the statistical probability of that is low. Where I do seem to have a dispute with you is as far as you try and present the 'minority view' of the likes of Dr. Regnerus as some king of definitive scientific proof that you and he are right when in fact it is far from such.

[Pyrpolizer]

The fact is there has been absolutely no survey that would not mix up irrelevant issues and hence come up with wrong conclusions.
I posted the study of Dr. Regnerus because it was the first one to question all those surveys that flooded the place for the sole purpose of promoting supposedly deprived gay/lesbian rights. I know it suffers as much as the rest.

I would expect minimal or no effect too if I would mix up in a survey a)the case of 1000 lesbians who raised their OWN children after they got divorced and thereafter chose to live with a female partner b)with the case of 10 such lesbians who adopted additional children with c) one case of lesbians who had no children and adopted one with d)one case of gay men who adopted a child.

The only serious study done so far was done in 2002 by the American Psychological Association and even that DID NOT concentrate on the issue of adoption.
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
I would at least EXPECT the American Psychological association to present in an equal manner their own studies on the importance of the role of mother father figures in creating character and behavior from childhood to adulthood. They avoid doing it, and the reason is obvious.

NB. The number of members in an association as for example the 14,000 members of ASA does not make it's opinions any truer than others.If it were like that then the opinions of religious organizations would be #1.

NB. You should learn the definition of EXPERIMENT.