Political Crossfire Forums

[SavannahMan]

Now that is hilarious!

Skepikal dismisses CDC and John Hopkins findings because they are "old" - from the 90's. Then he goes on to support his case by dredging up "studies" from the 70's and 80's.

Here - hold your cake and eat it too.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Now that is hilarious!

Skepikal dismisses CDC and John Hopkins findings because they are "old" - from the 90's. Then he goes on to support his case by dredging up "studies" from the 70's and 80's.

Here - hold your cake and eat it too.
Disease statistics fluctuate over time. The supposed effects on a child being raised by gay parents is something that we can very reasonably expect would be fairly consistent over time. So while it makes little sense for us to look at one set of disease stats nearing 10 years old and try to use them the way you have, there is little concern that the cumulative analysis of studies from the 70's and 80's with regard to child development would be similarly outdated. Should we undertake new studies? Perhaps, if you feel the need to re-prove what we've already determined with regard to childhood development.

Context matters here, as is usually the case.