Have you made ANY attempt to google the author, school or study I cited regarding the suicide rates among homosexuals? ANY at all? Bothered googling the subject matter in the least? No, I'm not going to spoon feed someone who has never read a peer reviewed article in his life. Go find it. Or one of the dozen others readily available. OR, try to find any study that contradicts my claims of higher suicide rates among homosexuals.
You haven't even read the studies on gun control issues. You use the same wrong terminology as the press used when reporting on it and regurgitate that it was bunk (which it was) but never bothered to read the study about shooting "family members".
I made an honest attempt to explain to you yet again why some of us don't want to shower with homosexuals. You continue to ignore it.
Nope, I NEVER said that. And I defy you to find any place I did.
That you think I did demonstrates a complete inability to comprehend what you read.
I quoted a study that found children raised by their married parents were about 50% less likely to suffer various forms of abuse or neglect that other children. I offered that as evidence of the benefits of marriage, NOT as an attack on homosexuals because the study did not even deal with homosexuals. It was comparing married couples with single parents and unmarried parents. Homosexual parents might well provide similar benefits to their children as do married heterosexual parents. They MIGHT. But I can't find any real studies that offer up such data. Can you?
And since you are clearly as bad at math as you are at reading comprehension let me explain that being 50% less likely on the one hand is not the same as being 50% more likely on the other. As a simple example, 50% of 200 is 100. But 50% more than 100 is only 150. Kind of freaky how those numbers work out there isn't it? When your 401k loses 10% on week and then gains 10% the next week, you are still below where you started.
What is the highest level of math you've ever studied? And passed the course with better than a C-?
It really is unfair of me since you are clearly completely incapable of either confirming OR refuting anything I've asserted as facts. Given everything short of a URL, you can't find the study I've cited from HARVARD of all places. So you haven't read it. But you know it is junk. Never mind that the conclusion of the study is very pro-homosexual. Some of the findings contradict your current world view and so you know it is junk.
No need to apologize. You can only use words you know and lack of reading will often reduce the odds of gaining a functioning vocabulary.
Charles
My only desire to not read stems from your useless and repetitive posts. Once again you would not provide and real reliable source for your "cites", once again insisting that everyone go out and look up your facts for you. No thanks.
You are very adamant that your study from harvard is the end all be all of factual evidence concerning homosexuality, yet when i compared the study to other studies, you of course declined to even refer to that part of my post and moved on to easier comments to pick apart, understandable.
You say "There are facts that state such and such" instead of actually STATING those facts... how to you not understand how stupid that is?
-I have PROOF! I have FACTS! THIS is the truth...... but yeah id rather not link it to you even after posting 15 times, 5 paragraphs per post.-
Right.
And ill point out that i was incorrectly quoting your 50% statistic, ill also point out that you did not infact refute my claim that it was complete ******** either way, instead opting to jump up and down with excitement at the fact you caught me misquoting you. I can tell this whole arguing thing is a big hobby to you, a game..... but its not a game to me and maybe thats hwy im not as inclined to post paragraph after paragraph of the same useless crap over and over again.
How much you wanna bet me you cant make a post without claiming many things and proving none of them?