*coughs* allow me to clear my throat.

Mizar said:
This is a contradiction. I'll just leave it at that, since the rest of what you wrote was just pseudo-scientific nonsense. Show me some studies, please.
You are funny, the way you try to manipolate discussions.
Anyway are you qualified to name the point pseudo-scientific (if you have even understood it)?
About studies, any well-known textbook of human psychology-fysiology with info on that matter will do. Unfortunatelly, I don't have the time to make a schedule for you to study. Make your way yourself or go and ask a psychiatrist and a psychologist.
Mizar said:
So where are the numbers?
The last psychiatrist study on this matter has shown this.
I don't remember the exact numbers unfortunatelly
(and if there were any exact numbers
(it was more like an estimation to conclusions by comparison of percentages),
anyway as soon as I remember(or gain access to the article that mentions) the name of the doctor I am gonna let you know)
but the conclusion was that this kind of disquilibriums (parent relationships) could create psychological problems. It aslo said that there are always exceptions (like the brilliant Charlie Chaplin) but generally we can expect the point mentioned above come true.
Mizar said:
About 10%, I think.
Sounds too much. At what rate is native population growth in Holland?
Mizar said:
About as much as in the rest of the world, I guess.
I guess not. Just my guess.
Mizar said:
Whatever the "tourists" wants to see. Gay marriage is not a big deal for us, but hey, if we can make some more money because tourists are curious about it, well.... why not? ;D
As long as you don't give them children to adopt ;)
 
ixupi said:
So why are you here if it is so silly?

We aren't talking about whether or not little kiddies should be looking at Janet's boob here.

Xechnao, were you raised by your father alone?

You are funny too, to attack the messenger when you don't have nothing actual to say about the message.

Anyway, this I call it flaming.

Another one like that and welcome to my ignore list. :-*
 

Mizar

Œ©‰Ž•·‚©‰ŽŒ¾‚퉎
xechnao said:
Anyway are you qualified to name the point pseudo-scientific (if you have even understood it)?
About studies, any well-known textbook of human psychology-fysiology with info on that matter will do. Unfortunatelly, I don't have the time to make a schedule for you to study. Make your way yourself or go and ask a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

I am currently in the process of getting a university's master degree in Psychology, fyi, so yes, I think I'm qualified to use the term pseudo-scientific. :) There is simply no such study which clearly shows that children need a female parent to be able to grow up as a psychological healthy human being. Chemical reactions, scents, my ass. The psychological development of a human being isn't as simple as you make it seem here, it depends on so many factors that we can't make any solid statements about the influence of the presence or absence of a female parent within this whole complex process.

Anyways, you want to deny gay couples (and single parents) the possibility to have and raise children just because you think they'll have a lower chance to grow up in good psychological health? Yes? Well, that's interesting, by the way, did you know that children who grow up in wealthy families generally do better than children from less wealthy families? So don't you think that because of this we should only allow fairly rich couples the right to have children? Oh yeah, and every couple should of course also first pass a bunch of psychological and physical tests before they are allowed to have children. I mean, here lies obviously a grave potential risk to the development of the future child as well. ::)

I could go on but I think my point has been made already.
 

SaiyajinNoOuji

I'm still better than you
Mizar said:
I am currently in the process of getting a university's master degree in Psychology, fyi, so yes, I think I'm qualified to use the term pseudo-scientific. :) There is simply no such study which clearly shows that children need a female parent to be able to grow up as a psychological healthy human being. Chemical reactions, scents, my ass. The psychological development of a human being isn't as simple as you make it seem here, it depends on so many factors that we can't make any solid statements about the influence of the presence or absence of a female parent within this whole complex process.

Anyways, you want to deny gay couples (and single parents) the possibility to have and raise children just because you think they'll have a lower chance to grow up in good psychological health? Yes? Well, that's interesting, by the way, did you know that children who grow up in wealthy families generally do better than children from less wealthy families? So don't you think that because of this we should only allow fairly rich couples the right to have children? Oh yeah, and every couple should of course also first pass a bunch of psychological and physical tests before they are allowed to have children. I mean, here lies obviously a grave potential risk to the development of the future child as well. ::)

I could go on but I think my point has been made already.

OH SNAP!
 
Mizar said:
I am currently in the process of getting a university's master degree in Psychology, fyi, so yes, I think I'm qualified to use the term pseudo-scientific. :)
I was aking if you are qualified to name that point pseudo-scientific. Which means that I was asking if you are able to prove that the point respects no scientific truth. If you have understood the point I was talking about and insist it is something pseudo-science like, I would like to advice you to speak no more with the excuse that you don't have your master yet, as you luck knowledge of your matter.
Mizar said:
There is simply no such study which clearly shows that children need a female parent to be able to grow up as a psychological healthy human being.
No, but there are studies that prove our psychology is dependent to human scents. There are also studies that prove adult psychological health is dependent to the psychological environments while growing up.
It is known that taste and scent sense stimoli in babies are very important factors of their environment. For example the mother connection-link is a process dependent to this, as it is milking from breasts. It is also known a connection between the sexuality psychology mechanisms for male babys and the female parent (milking being also a case involved in this).
Mizar said:
Chemical reactions, scents, my ass.
Farts? :eek:

Mizar said:
The psychological development of a human being isn't as simple as you make it seem here, it depends on so many factors that we can't make any solid statements about the influence of the presence or absence of a female parent within this whole complex process.
Some things remain simple to see. Mothers are very important for babies and there are many cases studied about complications that are due to such a disquilibrium.
Mizar said:
Anyways, you want to deny gay couples (and single parents) the possibility to have and raise children just because you think they'll have a lower chance to grow up in good psychological health? Yes?
What I am saying is not a creation of my imagination. Is this what you are trying to say over here? If so, you are wrong.
Mizar said:
Well, that's interesting, by the way, did you know that children who grow up in wealthy families generally do better than children from less wealthy families? So don't you think that because of this we should only allow fairly rich couples the right to have children?
I would say to try make poorer families, wealthier ;)

Mizar said:
Oh yeah, and every couple should of course also first pass a bunch of psychological and physical tests before they are allowed to have children. I mean, here lies obviously a grave potential risk to the development of the future child as well. ::)
Couples allready have physical tests before are allowed to have children in most (if not all) not third-world countries...
Mizar said:
I could go on but I think my point has been made already.
For me, hard to answer this one and not be rude. :-X


P.S. I'll look tomorrow if I can to post the name of the doctor I was talking about in the previous post.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
ok xencho, now I see why people hate you, by saying that to a student, as someone who knows relativly NOTHING about the matter, you just show how huge your ignorance.


This is not a third world country, we have rights, we can reproduce as we please, and we do that when we odn't want to, so we put kids up for adoption, you have a very selfish view on this, a child, needs someone, I don't think it really matters who, i think it also depends on love, I wouldn't classify my mom as the most loving or best person to grow up around, I personally, would rather be ead at the moment then in this household. But, in a household with love, words mean nothing, i go to my cousins and his parents talk shit to eachother, his dad talks shit to him, it's funny, but you can see they care and there is no missing love. my cousins grew up fine.


The condition of the love is what does it, if a child feels true love he will grow up to be a good person, if there is not hatred or malice anywhere within, he wont have problems, other things, outside things can effect people also, friends, enemys, school, Homosexuals are an equalization though, the world is balance, when humanity becomes too over populated, we need to balance, it, even a small percent of people will create a huge amount, who can adopt children without parents, thus creating more well raised people while not creating MORE people. I think it's ok for them to adopt, I feel comfortable around gays, mainly because they have less evil intentions then most people.
 
Kart said:
ok xencho, now I see why people hate you, by saying that to a student, as someone who knows relativly NOTHING about the matter, you just show how huge your ignorance.
My ignorance of what?
And that "someone who knows relativly NOTHING..." in your frase above, to whom has it been referring to?

Kart said:
This is not a third world country, we have rights, we can reproduce as we please, and we do that when we odn't want to, so we put kids up for adoption, you have a very selfish view on this, a child, needs someone, I don't think it really matters who, i think it also depends on love, I wouldn't classify my mom as the most loving or best person to grow up around, I personally, would rather be ead at the moment then in this household. But, in a household with love, words mean nothing, i go to my cousins and his parents talk shit to eachother, his dad talks shit to him, it's funny, but you can see they care and there is no missing love. my cousins grew up fine.
Could I name you an ignorant of the discussion because we didn't yet mention a specific country(other than Netherlands)? So which country are you talking about?

Kart said:
The condition of the love is what does it, if a child feels true love he will grow up to be a good person, if there is not hatred or malice anywhere within, he wont have problems, other things, outside things can effect people also, friends, enemys, school,
What are you talking about? Yes, a child needs love and affection. This could also be a dog. But I say the ideal is its the relationship of its mother first of all and it's father along also.
Kart said:
Homosexuals are an equalization though, the world is balance, when humanity becomes too over populated, we need to balance, it, even a small percent of people will create a huge amount, who can adopt children without parents, thus creating more well raised people while not creating MORE people. I think it's ok for them to adopt, I feel comfortable around gays, mainly because they have less evil intentions then most people.
I think it's not the best thing, that they adopt for reasons I stated above. Anyway what are you talking about (if you know that is) that gays have less evil intentions then most people. No, honestly what does this mean?
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
as this debate morphs into the question of gay adoptions, i find myself fairly lacking in knowledge, so i plan to sit in the sidelines while you guys debate. However, dont throw the term ignorant around...I had an earlier post in this thread that had the definition of ignorant...use that to prove ignorance...anyways, i am tempted to take Mizar's side, simply because he has an education in this field...
 

DarkBlademaster

Jesus cries when he looks at me.
pheonixfenix said:
as this debate morphs into the question of gay adoptions, i find myself fairly lacking in knowledge, so i plan to sit in the sidelines while you guys debate.

Same here, although i have a nasty feeling this post will become another one of those flame xechnao posts... i see it coming.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
I can't find the exact post, or i'm too lazy to look, either way someone said parents had to be tested to have kids in third world countries, or I could have imagined it, either way it's not of huge importance to the arguement.

and you're telling a student of psychology that he knows nothing about it, to me thats ignorance.

I ment, most homosexuals tend not to beat, molest, and generally fuck up their children like some straight parents, but i can't say all do not do it, i'm sure some do, but It must be less then hetrosexuals. and as long as anything creates a market where children can get a loving home it isn't totally a bad thing.
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
Also, i would like examples of these "third world countries"

The definition of a third world country is a country that is not a first world or second world country.
A first world country is Democratic/Capitalistic
A second world country is Communist
Therefore, a third world country, contrary to popular belief, does not mean a developing country (although it often is a developing country), and therefore, you cannot speak for all third world countries when you say adults have to be tested to see if they can have kids.

(the things you learn in US History....)
 
xechnao, im not trying to pick a fight with you so dont get your panties in a wrinkle, but from this quote here:

Couples allready have physical tests before are allowed to have children in most (if not all) not third-world countries...

Im wondering if youve ever actually lived in a third world country? That question isnt supposed to make a statement or anything, Im honestly just curious if youve ever lived in a third world country
 
elhnnaw and others, I think you misunderstood me.
No, I haven't lived in a third world country and I have no info if most of them make physical tests.
So, this is why I am speaking about not third world countries (which means that I am talking about the developed countries).
Pheonix note, that I use the term "third world" by popular meaning.


-Pheonix, in regard of the matters of the thread we were talking about
Ask anybody you really know is an expert and is really quallified to speak about this.

Anyway, I am at the sixth year of medicine (6 years university course) and I have got the fysiology and psychology courses-exams with honours.
I am not saying I am quallified as an expert but I am neither quallified to discart the above points or reffer to them as pseudo-science because of knowledge that they work in a different way (and heck, at the university we were taught those things: not about gays specifically but about the psychology mechanisms, dependencies and influences I am talking about). IMHO, Mizar has been arrogant and shows he doesn’t have knowledge of this matters.

And here Kart said "and you're telling a student of psychology that he knows nothing about it, to me thats ignorance."
Why? Not all students are well prepared by default and I didn't say what I said to Mizar without reason.

Also to Kart" I ment, most homosexuals tend not to beat, molest, and generally fuck up their children like some straight parents, but i can't say all do not do it, i'm sure some do, but It must be less then hetrosexuals."
Kart, I believe you are making all this out of your mind.

And finally Kart said" and as long as anything creates a market where children can get a loving home it isn't totally a bad thing."
-Let me get some thing straight. I didn't want to say that even if a baby is hopeless don't give it to a gay couple because they are gay. What I am trying to say is that if the only criteria that remains is this one and there are more choices for a child, the first one should be to be adopted by a man-woman couple and the last by a gay couple (that is, let a gay couple have them if there is no normal couple available, if the rest of the criteria score equally). This is my discrimination.


PS: The doctor I was talking above is dr Helm Stierlin , honoarable professor of psychiatry in the university of Chaidelberg(I am not sure this is spelled in english like this), in Germany.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
i have a damn hard time believing that but whatever, someone showed the quote I was talking about.


and I was wrong, i shouldn't have said that, there are gay people with those evil intentions, infact i know one, kind of like that, I was speaking out of my ass. I will not dismiss the claim of yours, simply because I am not a student of medicine, although It holds no grounds with me, I'll let you believe what you like, but If I were you, i wouldn't hold that to heart.

I myself am probably more ignorant then anyone who's argued so far, but you also seem to be lacking, you forgot you even said that about third world countries so.
 
Kart said:
i have a damn hard time believing that but whatever, someone showed the quote I was talking about.


and I was wrong, i shouldn't have said that, there are gay people with those evil intentions, infact i know one, kind of like that, I was speaking out of my ass. I will not dismiss the claim of yours, simply because I am not a student of medicine, although It holds no grounds with me, I'll let you believe what you like, but If I were you, i wouldn't hold that to heart.

I myself am probably more ignorant then anyone who's argued so far, but you also seem to be lacking, you forgot you even said that about third world countries so.

Kart, first of all, I believe you are lacking some coffe ;D

I tried to make clear what I said about third world countries, which actually I said nothing, so it was just your misunderstanding or more propably my bad expression.
I was talking about NOT third world countries (should it be "NO third world countries"?) ( go and check the very first phrase again, please) so I was intending to speak about developed countries.
And that I mentioned on the above post, also the one that someone (which obviously it was me) showed the quote you were talking about. ;)

About the adoption matter, I am not an expert either and I believe adoption normally is quite bit complicated as many criteria are tested, so what I am saying could have very low practical significance in the end.

Anyway cheers
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
I think speaking in this context, it's more about humanity then any kind of medical equation or pheramone (SP). I don't know if you know, but being without a parent is terrible, my father died and although most of the time i don't think about it, whenever it manages to gain any part of my thought I feel empty and almost cry, Imagine not having either, not having an attachment, a parent is not just a sex, or love, the love is what causes the child to develope correctly. But a child has very little chance, without just the attachment and knowledge there is someone to fall back on, someone, that's why I think it doesn't matter who the parent is as long as they are there.
 
Kart said:
I think speaking in this context, it's more about humanity then any kind of medical equation or pheramone (SP). I don't know if you know, but being without a parent is terrible, my father died and although most of the time i don't think about it, whenever it manages to gain any part of my thought I feel empty and almost cry, Imagine not having either, not having an attachment, a parent is not just a sex, or love, the love is what causes the child to develope correctly. But a child has very little chance, without just the attachment and knowledge there is someone to fall back on, someone, that's why I think it doesn't matter who the parent is as long as they are there.

Yeah, I know what you are talknig about and when I mentioned that it could be a dog I wasn't that sarcastic. You know the legend of Mogly, raised by wolves, a panther and a bear. But I was just trying to be a bit more specific or accurate about the ideal conditions.
I believe your mother was the most precious thing to have. But even orphans can live and prosper and excell. It's not an excuse, that one that has been an orphan can use to comport and behave inapropriatelly.
 
Top Bottom