Girlfriend is doing an article summary on this paper for one

>>137554661
faggots shouldn't raise (indoctrinate) kids.
if your girlfriend thinks otherwise, dump her.

>>137554722

She doesn't, it's just a mandatory reading she has to summarize for this week

File: Pic.jpg (364KB, 957x1024px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 957x1024px

>>137554661

>>137554661
All you will find is Regnerus, McHugh, and Sullins and to my knowledge Regnerus is the only one that is peer-reviewed and even then thinly and his study has a flawed sample where kids were categorized as being raised by gays when they didn't actually live with them.

>>137554852
>mandatory reading
the absolute state of tertiary education. here you go famalam
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01

File: pepe.jpg (24KB, 656x465px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 656x465px

>>137555049
>frc

>>137554661
Just because a "study" says children raised by gay parents says they'd be otherwise okay doesn't mean it to be true (it'd be an authority fallacy). Reason alone should always be used.

It shouldn't be about "hmm if we put this kid in this abnormal situation will he turn out okay?", it should be about what is FUNCTIONAL for society, what structure is gonna produce the best person that will actually be beneficial to society.

>>137554661

We'll inevitably see science become completely politicized. Soon studies that show negative effects of homosexuality will simply not be published or the researchers will modify their data.

It happened with something as minor as the chromosome number, it WILL happen with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Use_in_science

>>137554661
if this is something your gf upto write;

chances are high that your gf has cheated on you.

>>137554661

Tell your retarded gf that homosexual families are still fairly new in terms of available data so any conclusions she can draw will be based on insufficient evidence.

Proper data won’t be available for a while

>>137556168
This is the sensible answer. The Regnerus study that Christians tout only had 2 planned gay families in it out of thousands of people surveyed.

>>137554661
>I want some peer reviewed counter arguments to the paper's abstract

but that's not how sciece works you fucking tard

you're just as dumb as the fucking christians assuming god exists because that's what they want to believe

follow the evidence, idiot

>>137556561
There's a guy who comes on here and when presented with evidence that anti-gay studies are shit claims that they aren't because there are not adequate "counter studies".

>>137554661
There was a study somewhere that demonstrated the children had a lot of psychological problems, but I don't have a link right now.

>>137554661
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaks-out/

Fun reading material. There was a paper published that found about 9/10 adoptive children of lesbians, when asked directly about future relationship prospects at age 8, answered they envisioned a "not necessarily heterosexual relationship".

Biologically, homosexual tendencies do not take effect until children hit puberty. Last I checked, 8 is prepubescent and questioning your sexuality that much at that age is not remotely natural.

>>137555941
>>137557507
They already started. These studies don't ask the children directly what kind of relationship they see themselves in anymore, instead they observe arbitrary bullshit, and report on nothing. The truth will become obvious eventually, but it will be too late then