Should something be done about literal faggots? What causes homosexuality? Whether they're that way because of environment, or because of the meme homosexual gene. If it were purely environmental then it could be prevented- and maybe even cured. If it is an inevitable/incurable occurrence in humanity, how should homosexuals live out their lives?
The Homosexual Question
Austin Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
discord
en.wikipedia.org
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
sci-hub.bz
askphilosophers.org
heritage.org
washingtonpost.com
archive.is
slate.com
rightwingwatch.org
advocate.com
articles.latimes.com
thepublicdiscourse.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
familystructurestudies.com
familystructurestudies.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Henry James
Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:
discord dot gg/BeXeN
Brandon Brooks
Leave literal queers alone you faggot. They're no threat to me, the like dick so they're not likely to try and bang my old lady. Let them suck dick in peace and stop being a nigger.
Jackson Gonzalez
Your cherry-picked, outdated data is changing nobody's mind. Any and all anti-gay Christian research has been thoroughly debunked to everyone except those who simply want to read their own conclusions into data no matter what.
Homosexuality is most likely a mutation of the X chromosome that mainly makes women MORE attracted to men so they on average have more kids, and men who have the mutation have less kids on average.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Joshua Diaz
Look at these degenerate faggots.
Adrian Bell
1. Teach pubescent kids about homosexuality: it is rare, abnormal, and results in high risk for health and social problems, but this can be avoided, and people usually do not choose to be gay. It's wrong to blame someone for what they did not choose.
2. reduce STD transmission and drug use among gays by whatever means are most efficient, but remember that it is NOT wrong to judge people for what they DO choose -- degenerate gays who spread drugs and disease should be punished.
3. no special rights for gays. You're not special or oppressed, you just came out weird. Live your weird life without bothering anyone.
Robert Roberts
So what can we do about this scourge, Sup Forums?
Should we have mandatory bedroom checks by police? I'm thinking we could have more surveillance, it's a good thing Obama got the ball rolling on that amirite?
So, let's have more surveillance, let's have authorities check your body for signs of gay sex, and also have some kind of program where those accused of or suspected of being gay can be detained? Help me out on this.
Jonathan Wright
bump
Ethan Parker
Just look at all the prosperity in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc... America should be more like them!
Hunter Lewis
> Any and all anti-gay Christian research has been thoroughly debunked to everyone except those who simply want to read their own conclusions into data no matter what.
So in other words
>I don't like the results of these studies, therefore they have no authenticity or bearing on how things are.
Many of the things that the studies in the OP image pointed out are issues that are in fact publicly acknowledged by most of the LGBTQBBQTMGJWXYZ "community" anyway.
It's almost like the only thing everyone in the thread read was the title, and everyone automatically assumed that the OP image statistics were going to be attacking Homosexuals.
To break down what I was asking in the thread for those who can't take the time to read 2 short sentences.
>what causes homosexuality
>if its preventable- should be prevent it?
>if its curable should we could it?
>if its INcurable how should homosexuals live out their lives?
To provide context on my interest in this discussion- I myself have homosexual desires/are homosexual. I was raised under the "Christian Family Values" meme, and always thought that I would have a family growing up, so naturally these two things are in conflict. Pic related. So yes, OP is a literal faggot.
Nicholas Cox
Homosexuality is a paraphilia like any other. It can be cured by "rebooting" the brain. See www.yourbrainonporn.com
Daniel Myers
I don't understand the strong opposition to any research into willing gay reversal. If someone is unhappy with the way their body/mind is, shouldn't they have a right to change it? I'm certain there are gay people who don't want to be, but instead of investigating any chance of them to change it we all say "No you're perfect! Now adhere to my ideal of a diverse society!"
Owen Anderson
I went on nofap for 6 months and it made no difference m8. Sure this may be the case for some homosexuals- maybe even most, but not all.
Cameron Hughes
>I don't understand the strong opposition to any research into willing gay reversal. If someone is unhappy with the way their body/mind is, shouldn't they have a right to change it?
Whatever happened to "my body my choice" amongst liberals right?
Joseph Rivera
>I don't understand the strong opposition to any research into willing gay reversal. If someone is unhappy with the way their body/mind is, shouldn't they have a right to change it?
>Whatever happened to "my body my choice" amongst liberals right?
Gays are on a never-ending quest for validation, they fetishize it. Almost all of them had problems in their upbringing and had an imbalance of positive reinforcement, so they alternately attack the dominant culture and seek its approval.
Tyler Hall
bump
Mason Bell
It's hard to have an actual discussion when threads like this hardly last 10-15 minutes
Angel Walker
Sadly all this research is kinda irrelevant if you look at the big picture of social security and replacement rate... They don't produce kids and therefore when they retire, they will force other peoples kids to work harder to pay for their social security. This is stealing and it is not right.
Also, they should never even have kids. Not only are children 4-7 times more likely to develop non-heterosexual preferences if raised by same-sex parents but what's worse is their rates of committing child sexual abuse.
Brandon Carter
>people who were historically persecuted have high rates of depression and have a hard time finding long-term sexual partners
>they should die because they kill each other
Matthew Morgan
>they should die because they kill each other
Where did I say this?
>Also, they should never even have kids. Not only are children 4-7 times more likely to develop non-heterosexual preferences if raised by same-sex parents but what's worse is their rates of committing child sexual abuse.
I'm aware of these statistics. I'm torn between wanting to fulfill my sexual desires- and effectively living a life of celibacy with a woman and raising kids with a traditional family model.
Michael Flores
There are also other consequences of fucking with the family model which can be seen in the children who were raised by a single parent. Kids who are raised by single mothers tend to be less successful in school and in their careers, they also are more likely to engage in criminal activities.
Jeremiah Baker
bump
Oliver Bell
bump
Christopher Sanders
I'm sorry and I know it's hard, we all have our crosses to bear.
Don't even need to be Christian for this stuff.
askphilosophers.org
Landon Gutierrez
fug i got tricked for a few seconds by that pic congrats
Jaxon Sullivan
>fulfill my sexual desires
There's no point in fulfilling any sexual desires unless you're actually in love... And no, thinking 'he's hot' and getting a boner =/= being in love.
Grayson Sanchez
bump
Logan Rogers
Nice digits. If I'm a monogamous gay person in love is that acceptable? Its the only time I engage in sexual intercourse, and I don't want kids.
Daniel Bailey
>monogamous gay person in love
Well technically the same argument earlier with replacement rate still applies....
Michael Cooper
those citations lmao
most of those claims are apparently backed by a single American study and the first, most outrageous one is based on a study from 1978. there's even narth.org there which is a "gay conversion" organisation
the only credible source listed is CDC and even that is just raw data
Jackson Murphy
That's pretty fair. I'd accept a higher tax on my earnings, since I wouldn't be spending the money on kids. I feel like that's reasonable.
Jeremiah Myers
He said he doesn't want kids.
>pay for their social security. This is stealing and it is not right.
Social security is funded by taxation, which is stealing, period.
Michael Mitchell
bump
Ian Cox
>cherry-picked
heritage.org
Suggest reading up on the follow-up. If you cannot even have children (not circumstantially, but by definition of male/female), then there are innate differences that you ignore.
Benjamin Green
You won't be producing resources but taking them instead from a system you didn't feed into. People took the sacrifice of raising you as a kid, so you should still pay into social security but get none since you didn't have kids of your own.
Carson Morales
"And when pushed, a lot of people who were critics of mine will say: “Yeah, we know that, obviously, family structure matters,” and then they’ll complain, “Why didn’t you find many stably coupled lesbians?” Well, they just were not that common in the nationally representative population. There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. […]
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them."
Jonathan Garcia
Thoroughly debunked. That literally was cherry-picking. The study measured how broken homes were, there were 0 kids in the study that lived with gay male married parents for 18 years and 2 that lived with lesbian parents for all 18 years. The study was funded by Christians with a conclusion in mind before they ever conducted it.
Bentley Brooks
I plan to work until I drop anyways. Not taking social security and paying into it is a preferable option to what I see likely happening in the future, people like me being rounded up and killed.
Levi Williams
>that lived with gay male married parents
Yeah, because gays cannot be biological parents. You know, you have to have an ovum and spermatozoa form a zygote and so on. A male does not have ovaries, so a male cannot be a female to birth children.
Interesting how the definition of homosexual is so important, yet it is tossed under the rug when considering the "homosexuality" of men who utilize sperm swapping to give to a donor egg. The act of reproduction is mutually exclusive with heterosexuals (i.e. man and woman gametes). You've just taken out the penetration, but gays who engage in reproduction in this manner are actually bisexual at best, because a strict homosexual can never have children.
>The study was funded by Christians with a conclusion in mind before they ever conducted it.
Genetic fallacy. Onus is on you to substantiate your assertion and illustrate how the source necessarily determines the alleged predetermined conclusion.
"Using a large, nationally representative dataset, a new study by sociologist Mark Regnerus finds that children whose parents had a same-sex relationship experienced more negative adult outcomes compared with children from intact biological families."
That is the assertion.
John Ortiz
"Results of the Regnerus study reveal that having a parent who is or has been in a same-sex relationship is generally associated with more negative adult outcomes, especially when compared with adult children from intact biological families. For example, adults whose mother or father had a same-sex relationship have lower educational attainment than adults who grew up with their two married biological parents. They are also more likely to receive welfare, experience depression, smoke, and be arrested. These differences remain after controlling for a variety of other childhood circumstances, such as race, family income, and state of residence."
Owen Wilson
"As Regnerus makes clear, these results establish an association among family structure, parental relationships, and adult outcomes—not causation. The study does not by itself establish that having a parent in a same-sex relationship is a root cause of the differences in outcomes that Regnerus observed. However, it does suggest that such a causal mechanism is plausible and cannot be ruled out. The claim of no measured disadvantage for children with parents who have same-sex relationships cannot be justified by the existing research.
Despite what some media reports might suggest, Regnerus’s study draws no conclusions about how marriage should be defined. The report focuses on the data, not their implications for the political and legal debate. However, his study is significant because its findings discredit a popular argument for same-sex marriage: that it makes no difference whether children are raised by parents who had a same-sex relationship or by a married mother and father, an argument that the existing data cannot support."
Seems to me you've yet to actually read the study itself. Just spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense without refuting the direct point, but a strawman you make up, isn't very "scientific".
Jaxon Jackson
degenerates swing right next to the niggers on that gloriouse Day
Chase Parker
this has been gone over with time and time and time again.
Anthony Powell
No Regnerus was funded by Christian organizations with the explicit goal of quickly producing a survey that they could use the results for in court cases. He is a Catholic himself and the Witherspoon Institute that funded it as a front for user-catholics Opus Dei. If you don't think Christians have a compelling, foul, interest in magically debunking the ability of gays to gain equality to them you are foolish.
They massaged the data until they got the results they were looking for. The overall sample was less than 200 and therefore not exactly representative, especially when the straight families chosen were married for 18 years vs kids who may have lived with a gay parent for a few months to a few years at most. We won't see good data on the suitability of gay married parents until 2040 at the earliest.
Jason Barnes
Oh, they can definitely choose to be gay. How? Why, by simply not soliciting or having sex.
If they cannot help themselves, then it is clear that they have a major malfunction that makes them distinctly different from those who can choose to not have sex.
Cooper Allen
Disgraced “academic” Mark Regnerus slid yet further into ignominy on Wednesday after defenders of Utah’s doomed gay marriage ban expunged all references to his debunked study in their brief. The state, which is currently defending the invalidated ban before the Tenth Circuit, had cited Regnerus in two footnotes in a previously filed brief, and structured much of its argument around the conclusions of Regnerus’ work, which asserts that gay couples make inferior parents. Now the state is asking the Tenth Circuit to pretend those footnotes don’t exist, a last-minute revision made “in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus.”
Euphemistic excuses aside, everyone knows that Utah dropped the Regnerus study in direct response to a Michigan federal judge’s complete and total dismissal of Regnerus’ work, after he denounced it as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” That searing condemnation seems to have put an end to Regnerus’ shameless, pseudoscientific gay-bashing crusade. This mainstream rejection of Regnerus is long overdue: Many in his own field have repudiated his findings, and the journal that published his original study performed an audit concluding that it had “serious flaws and distortions” and never should have been published. (The most breathtaking flaw of all: Regnerus didn’t even include a valid sample of children raised by same-sex parents.) No one, except perhaps Regnerus’ anti-gay conservative funders, could seriously argue that the Regnerus study actually proves what he—and same-sex marriage opponents—claims it proves. In fact, the study is so methodologically mangled that it’s hard to say it proves much at all.
Charles Murphy
By eliminating suspect data — for example, a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1 — and correcting what they view as Regnerus’ methodological errors, Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile” that his data could just as easily show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents don’t face negative adult outcomes.
“[W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used,” they wrote, “a different conclusion emerges: adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families.”
In other words, as University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen put it, “when you clean the data and fix the things that are fixable, the results just don’t hold up.”
rightwingwatch.org
Lucas Sullivan
In a review of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the Independent's Sophia Resnick discovered that the antigay, right-wing Witherspoon Institute "recruited a professor from a major university to carry out a study that was designed to manipulate public policy. In communicating with donors about the research project, Witherspoon's president clearly expects results unfavorable to the gay-marriage movement."
Resnick notes that the family structures study was rushed through the academic review process, as it was submitted for publication before Regnerus and his team had finished collecting data.
And from the beginning, Witherspoon president Luis Tellez made it clear to Regnerus that he wanted results published in time to submit them as evidence to the Supreme Court while it considers two cases related to same-sex marriage; Windsor v. U.S. challenges the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry contends that California's Proposition 8, which rescinded marriage equality, is unconstitutional.
"Naturally we would like to move along as expeditiously as possible," Tellez wrote to Regnerus in an email obtained by the Independent. "It would be great to have this before major decisions of the Supreme Court,"
Even the editor of the journal that published the results of the Regnerus study told Resnick he resented the information being used to weigh in on a matter of "civil rights, i.e., a legal question, not something to be 'resolved' by empirical research."
The study's author has also admitted to faulty data, noting that his study compared married opposite-sex couples with children to parents who said they had ever had a same-sex encounter, but many of whom were single parents. In fact, the study only included two households headed by stable, two-parent, same-sex couples.
Joseph Butler
>Unironically sourcing Slate and RWW
Juan Jones
The trouble is that no scholarly research, including the Regnerus paper, has ever compared children of stable same-sex couples to children of stable different-sex couples, in part because an adequate sample size is hard to come by. (Regnerus acknowledges he was unable to find an adequate sample size, but he went ahead and made the comparison anyway.) Like the Regnerus paper, all these studies show is that divorce and single-parenthood raise risks for kids. Indeed, the basis of the 20-year "consensus" is that two parents are better than one, not that parents have to be different genders.
Regnerus seeks to enhance the credibility and relevance of this body of research by including in his sample respondents who actually had a gay parent instead of just people from broken or single-parent homes. But because his sample is mostly made up of fractured families, he fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant. What he has produced is no better than its predecessors at yielding insight into the effect of same-sex parenting.
articles.latimes.com
Kevin Butler
>I plan to work until I drop anyways
I see... that's not so good. Just know that the definition of love (as defined by Thomas Aquinas) is to will the good of another. God loves you and so do I.
John Bell
be difficult with them in the way normies are to cigarette smokers. That seems to be repoducible.
Tyler Brown
This is all based on the an assumption ur a man slag
Jaxon Miller
>No Regnerus was funded by Christian organizations
genetic fallacy. Onus is on you. If I claim 'x' is discredited by the source, I have to make reference to the methodology.
>The overall sample was less than 200
Except it was a nation-wide sample size with measures taken to debunk that non-argument. You'd know if you read the study.
>Disgraced “academic” Mark Regnerus
ad hom
>all references to his debunked study in their brief.
Ad homs and genetic fallacies are non-arguments.
>everyone knows that Utah dropped the Regnerus study in direct response to a Michigan federal judge’s complete and total dismissal of Regnerus’ work, after he denounced it as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”
Argument from personal incredulity. Wow, not a single scientific argument.
>Regnerus’ shameless, pseudoscientific gay-bashing crusade.
Appeal to emotion.
>Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile”
thepublicdiscourse.com
Regnerus has already addressed Cheng and Powell.
>discovered that the antigay, right-wing Witherspoon Institute
Still not an argument, just displaying your distaste at 'x', not rebutting the central point.
>Resnick notes that the family structures study was rushed through the academic review process
Notice how no single argument has actually been presented against the findings, just ad homs and genetic fallacies.
Brayden Perez
We should do something about homophobic bigots first.
Hudson Clark
> Being condemned to fucking smelly assholes for the rest of my life
*PASS
Nicholas Gutierrez
It compared married straight families to non-married families where the child reported at least one parent to have had a known homosexual relationship. That is not an equal comparison.
The findings are the result of manipulating numbers in a survey. They did not have enough married gay families to compare the children's outcomes in such a family to those of a straight married family. It just measures familial discord and the effects on children.
Jonathan Carter
>The study's author has also admitted to faulty data, noting that his study compared married opposite-sex couples with children to parents who said they had ever had a same-sex encounter, but many of whom were single parents. In fact, the study only included two households headed by stable, two-parent, same-sex couples.
Yeah, you really haven't read the study.
"As Regnerus makes clear, these results establish an association among family structure, parental relationships, and adult outcomes—not causation. The study does not by itself establish that having a parent in a same-sex relationship is a root cause of the differences in outcomes that Regnerus observed. However, it does suggest that such a causal mechanism is plausible and cannot be ruled out. The claim of no measured disadvantage for children with parents who have same-sex relationships cannot be justified by the existing research.
Despite what some media reports might suggest, Regnerus’s study draws no conclusions about how marriage should be defined. The report focuses on the data, not their implications for the political and legal debate. However, his study is significant because its findings discredit a popular argument for same-sex marriage: that it makes no difference whether children are raised by parents who had a same-sex relationship or by a married mother and father, an argument that the existing data cannot support."
>adequate sample size is hard to come by. (Regnerus acknowledges he was unable to find an adequate sample size, but he went ahead and made the comparison anyway.
So he discredits his entire methodology? Nice citation there. Limitations that were addressed and explanations provided. In the study. If you've read it.
>is that two parents are better than one, not that parents have to be different genders.
That is an oxymoron. Biological parents cannot be the same gender. You cannot have two of the same "dad".
Bentley Lopez
>muh gay gene
>dat liberal fad
>muh family structure
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
and yet Romans/Greeks had no issues with breeding, while maintaining grander civilizations longer than modern lands of the judgemental and self righteous Christ fags
Adrian Lee
I wasn't talking about family structure, I was talking about economics, birth rates and social security.
Evan Bell
"It compared married straight families to non-married families where the child reported at least one parent to have had a known homosexual relationship. That is not an equal comparison. "
According to the strawman you push, yes. If you've read the study, you would know what is actually being purported.
"Despite claims that “no differences” exist between children whose parents had a same-sex relationship and children who were raised by their married biological parents, previous research cannot support such an assertion. Using a large, nationally representative dataset, a new study by sociologist Mark Regnerus finds that children whose parents had a same-sex relationship experienced more negative adult outcomes compared with children from intact biological families. The study has sparked a remarkably hostile and unscientific backlash—a backlash presumably motivated by the paper’s implications for the same-sex marriage debate. This backlash is regrettable because it undermines the health of public discourse on a subject of enormous significance—the institution of marriage—and challenges the integrity of social science inquiry in general."
>The findings are the result of manipulating numbers in a survey
That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.
>They did not have enough married gay families
Oxymoron. A "gay family" does not exist, only one man who is the father of a child and another man who helps him raise them.
It's because gays are not exactly ideal role models children look up to, given, say, the rate at which diseases are spread proportional to their population. Read: Thoroughly refutes the "gays are normal like us and we are all interchangeable units" meme.
Brayden Ramirez
>economics, birth rates and security.
sure pal, Greeks and Romans had a hard time with those. gay gene those days baka
Lincoln Allen
Why does everyone lump all LGBTQWERTY together?
Being gay by no choice of ur own and wanting to be transquasimodal gendered has no correlation
Jace Flores
At least give yourself a few months
Evan Gonzalez
He compared married families to non-married families and found the kids were worse off in broken homes. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. If he had compared married or at least partnered gay couples to married straight couples that would have been actual evidence.
Saying that gays, who at the time the study was conducted could not marry or adopt in many states, do not have better parenting outcomes is a catch-22. Gays have, until 2015, been artificially restricted from having their own families.
There is no research comparing gay married couples to straight married couples. None.
Jonathan Nguyen
get stoned to death you disgusting degenerate
Anthony Taylor
>He compared married families to non-married families and found the kids were worse off in broken homes
familystructurestudies.com
"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS strongly
suggest that there are differences between children raised by
a parent who had a same-sex relationship and children
raised in an intact, biological, married family when it comes
to social, emotional, and relational outcomes. By drawing
from a large, random sample of the American population
rather than a small convenience sample, by interviewing the
children in their young-adult years rather than their parents,
and by comparing them to the children of intact, biological
families rather than only to children of divorced, stepparent,
adoptive, or single-parent families, the NFSS found
important and wide-ranging differences between young
adults raised by their own, biological, married parents and
young adults who reported having a mother in a same-sex
relationship, and to a lesser degree, those who reported
having a father in the same."
You actually need to read the literature before you address a claim.
>That has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Parents who engage in homosexual behaviour are not equivalent to parents who do not engage in homosexual behaviour.
>If he had compared married or at least partnered gay couples to married straight couples that would have been actual evidence.
Given how promiscuous homosexuals are, have fun with getting down to that.
>Saying that gays, who at the time the study was conducted could not marry or adopt in many states,
Look at this cognitive dissonance. You illustrate the same caveats Regnerus openly states, yet you still persist with the pseudo-scientific strawman.
>There is no research comparing gay married couples to straight married couples.
Thanks for admitting to not reading any of the literature.
Chase White
studies show that homophobes are gays in denial.
Alexander Reed
>Get rid of all faggots
>No more pol
>No more you
Luke Myers
tl;dr
Kayden Morgan
Your country has smaller than average penis length
Eli Collins
So you at least admit there is not research comparing straight and gay married couples and the outcomes of their child-rearing and that this is not that, or no?
Nolan Walker
so does yours.
Parker Wood
Anyone who gets TRIGGERED by gay people existing is a WORTHLESS FUCKING FAGGOT
Christian Nguyen
Guy conducts a nation-wide survey comparing parents who had engaged in homosexual activity versus parents who hadn't. Shocking: they are not interchangeable and equivalent.
>n-no you!
Still not a refutation. All you got was "well, he's Christian-funded so the conclusion is wrong". Genetic fallacy: next.
"Well, he's a bigot meanie weanie...". Ad hom: next. "Well the sample size discredits it all". Not really forming a substantive argument against the methodology: next (read more in: familystructurestudies.com
"Well, it isn't actually about just gay parents". That's because a gay parent is an oxymoron and it says more about the lack of family structure in homosexual communities: because they can never have biological children of their own. You're asking him to find a unicorn that doesn't exist: two men who had sex and created life. That is impossible.
Luis Young
Great snapback you pale pasty crumpet
Christopher James
>familystructurestudies.com
And for whatever reason half the kids who listed having a gay parent were non-White and it says they controlled for race but I cannot find where.
Public perceptions and stereotypes of children of gays and lesbians usually assume them to be white, upper- middle-class members of society. However, in response to questions about race, 48% of the respondents with a GF, and 43% of the respondents with an LM indicated that they were either black or Hispanic, a number much higher than previously suggested by studies based on convenience samples.(13) On economic outcomes, grown children of an LM were almost four times more likely to be currently on public assistance than the grown children of IBFs. As young adults, they were also 3.5 times more likely to be unemployed than the grown children of IBFs.
Charles Thomas
It's true tho, just sayin.
Dylan Torres
Gays can have surrogate children or adopt and these numbers do not compare such families to families where straight parents have had biological children. One can indeed have civilly married gay parents who have biological (via surrogacy) or non-biological children.
Nathan Nguyen
This thread is now about Europeans and how fucking pathetic and worthless they are.
Discuss which European countries you hate the most.
I'll start. Sweden is a bunch of faggets and Britain is a bunch of faggets.
Dylan Nelson
let's be honest, do these people look like anything described in your op image?
Justin Hughes
...
Luke Turner
That's because we're a British colony duh. Don't worry, WE take care of all the white girls here.
William Campbell
>Discuss which European countries you hate the most.
butthurt over the small penis thing huh
Brayden Hall
This I agree with. I can't tell you how many shithead redneck homophobes I've seen start getting real touchy and experimental when they're drunk.
Luis Green
>And for whatever reason half the kids who listed having a gay parent were non-White and it says they controlled for race but I cannot find where.
Lol. That's because that isn't the study. That is a follow-up. Want to know how I know you're full of it? You can't differentiate between supplementary literature bolstering the initial claim and the original claims themselves.
>Public perceptions and stereotypes of children of gays and lesbians usually assume them to be white, upper- middle-class members of society. However, in response to questions about race, 48% of the respondents with a GF, and 43% of the respondents with an LM indicated that they were either black or Hispanic, a number much higher than previously suggested by studies based on convenience samples.(13) On economic outcomes, grown children of an LM were almost four times more likely to be currently on public assistance than the grown children of IBFs. As young adults, they were also 3.5 times more likely to be unemployed than the grown children of IBFs.
True. Just look at black homosexual AIDS rates. Oh wait, I thought we were all equal...
>Gays can have surrogate children
Not biologically related to both parents.
>or adopt
See above.
>One can indeed have civilly married gay parents who have biological (via surrogacy) or non-biological children.
Not biologically related to both parents. A biological parent cannot be the same gender as his/her spouse, by the definition of a male/female.
Not saying they cannot be "parents" to a child, as adoptive heterosexual parents exist, too. But by definition of males/females, no.
Austin Sullivan
They actually do tho, they got some self identified gay haterz & some guys who said they didn't give a shit who was gay, they made both groups watch gay porn, the gay haterz got erections, seems fairly conclusive to me.
Nathaniel Rivera
Dude I just told you are average is low because of the British and Irish whites. Are you proud of that?
Lincoln Morgan
I'm gay but I don't look or act or even talk like one. Most people think I'm straight and I pass as straight all the time. Heck I've been to fucking Iran before and nobody ever suspected i was gay.
Evan Lee
>That's because we're a British colony duh. Don't worry, WE take care of all the white girls here.
More likely the Asians, the UK was one of the countries at the higher end of the benis size scale
Dominic Murphy
>menswear
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
literal gaynigger refugees from space
Xavier Moore
Well all the small dicks emigrated from England to the States which is why they had to import hung Africans to breed the white women.
Josiah Long
Yup, they doth protesteth too much me thinks.
Jack Thompson
Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord-
discord dot gg/HVT6p
Lincoln Clark
makes sense, I see no need for further disagreement, I shall bid you good day sir.
Brandon Hill
You can get aids just as likely by fucking a woman in the ass. It's because the anal cavity is very fragile and can bleed sometimes. The vagina is stronger though.
Ryan Adams
>What causes homosexuality?
it's obviously a birth defect
Ethan Edwards
possibly something in the brain. A mix of the brain and hormones.
Brody Sullivan
>familystructurestudies.com
The supplementary material at hand is discussing racial differences in the original study though.
Both parents do not need to be biological for it to count as a family or for the parent to be counted as such.
A study comparing adoptive married/partnered straight vs gay couples would be illuminating. This is not because it pits broken families vs married couples who lived with their kids all 18 years. There are hence confounding factors that the study fails to sort out.
Austin Ortiz
I'm Catholic. I'm a classical liberal. I'm a young student who looks to get into politics. I'm gay.. why do you care what I do in my bedroom? How is it any of your business? How does it harm you.