'Really, runner? Do you have any evidence to support your far-fetched claim, or do you just feel it in your waters?

I rather suspect that no priest has to practise homosexuality, you're either a natural at it or you aren't. Who knows, maybe they do make them practise at seminary college... that might explain a thing or two about Tony Abbott ;)'

since whyen did you get interested in evidence Toni. Evidence will never fit your grubby narrative.

Not quite, ttbn.

<<So emotions, beliefs, nature and being human count as nothing against science and "studies", right?>>

Subjective experiences are just not as reliable as empirical data.

<<And, you know more about my relationship with my family than I do; anything I say is "invalid".>>

No to both of those. I have said nothing that should have suggested that that is what I think. All I said is that your experience is unreliable because you have a sample size of one (i.e. one family). Does a dysfunctional heterosexual family disprove your “evidence”? Did your family fare worse when they were raised by homosexual couples? How do you know they wouldn’t have done better?

<<Just because some tool puts 'studies' up on the internet, you take them as gospel.>>

No, I’m actually somewhat qualified in this area, which is why I know it’s not junk science, and why you and onthebeach aren’t faring too well here. You just assume that whatever disagrees with your ignorant worldview must be junk science. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claim.

<<...I must thank you for increasing my self-esteem.>>

Yes, I raise it so much that you need to start twisting my words and throw up a bunch of unsupported assertions just to generate a response. You’re kidding no-one other than yourself, ttbn.

onthebeach,

No bollocks at all. For the GIGO rule to be a valid criticism here, self-reported data would have to be completely useless. Instead, it simply has its weaknesses like any other data-gathering method. Such weaknesses are usually noted in studies as the essay’s “limitations”. Researchers also go to great lengths to minimise the impact of weaknesses in data-gathering methods such as formulating their questions carefully so as to not unduly influence responses.

As I alluded to earlier, you clearly know nothing about any of this, resorting instead to ad hominems and conspiracy in lieu of any real knowledge. You guys can continued to find excuses to ignore the facts when they contradict your ignorant worldviews all you like. Good luck in learning anything new that way.

AJ Philips,

Usually it is the uses that you and other activists make of studies and especially your unethical refusal to declare the limitations up-front that is the problem.

You have more front than a tourist bus to claim as you have done that the 'cumulative results', the conclusions, that YOU and GAY ACTIVISTS and feckless tabloids take from 'research/studies' are in fact supported by the evidence which they are NOT.

However, apart from that, junk science and even fraudulent 'scientific' research, is a growth industry and government research funding to appease noisy lobbyists, and the prevalence of 'user-pays' and fund raising requirements for universities contribute.

“Refusal” eh, onthebeach?

<<Usually it is the uses that you and other activists make of studies and especially your unethical refusal to declare the limitations up-front that is the problem.>>

On the contrary limitations are discussed continuously - whether in their own studies or in the studies of others. For example, limitations were discussed in every one of the studies I linked to. Academics love proving each other wrong too. It helps them to earn a name.

This idea that academia is one big secretive, plotting brotherhood in which no-one blows the whistle or manages to let anything slip is the stuff of conspiracy theorists and not worthy of any serious consideration. Neither, too, is the creationist-esque claim surrounding lack of funding. There are plenty of wealthy churches that would be willing to fund anti-gay research. James Dobson has some repetitively debunked papers that I think you’d like.

<<You have more front than a tourist bus to claim as you have done that the 'cumulative results', the conclusions, that YOU and GAY ACTIVISTS and feckless tabloids take from 'research/studies' are in fact supported by the evidence which they are NOT.>>

So what is this evidence that the research is apparently not supportive of? They would want to be pretty convincing given that the vast majority of studies conclude that same-sex parenting is no worse than opposite-sex parenting. Could you provide me with some links? Simply contradicting me isn’t an argument.

A J Philips,

There is peer review and there is peer review, just as there are journals that will accept practically anything.

You have added nothing of worth, just fallacious Strawmen and more narrative.

AJPhillips "This idea that academia is one big secretive, plotting brotherhood in which no-one blows the whistle or manages to let anything slip is the stuff of conspiracy theorists and not worthy of any serious consideration."

Not at all AJPhillips, Onthebeach believes it is the 'sisterhood' who control the academia and plot continuously to undermine all men, family courts, police, governments, religion....and anything else that he believes to be true.

I see he still wasn't able to provide any credible, peer reviewed, recent research papers that show his unproved personal views that gay people make worse parents than heterosexual parents?
OTB, you may need to go read the Catholic newspaper to find what you want to see...