Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Like i said when you wanna change the record let me know.

[video="dailymotion;xctlgt"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xctlgt_hot-chip-over-and-over_music[/video]

Id say this has been worthwhile but since repeating the same augments while your opponent refutes them over and over until they get board isnt a tactic I can ever see myself using it hasnt really.

(4) If you're going to doubt peer-reviewed research as 'politically motivated', which you have not even shown that the research we've presented is 'politically motivated' -- as it has been peer-reviewed by numerous researchers and is the official position of the APA, then you have to doubt non-peer-reviewed research even more. Since the research you've presented is not peer-reviewed, it's even more suspect to political motivations than ours. Yet again, you've completely failed at logical reasoning since you seem to think the research you've provided is somehow 'more accurate', even though it hasn't been peer-reviewed.

In psychology we don't accept non-peer-reviewed research as being credible.

I'm going to just pretend you aren't actually that ignorant. Also, thank you for being so completely incompetent as to post complete irrelevancies. I love your complete and total lack of reasoning ability -- it's so wonderful.

(1) Climate change has literally nothing to do with what's at hand. Let's refer to what I just stated above -- do you use research on gravity to reach conclusions about hydrogen bonding? No -- thereby, you cannot use this to research conclusions about psychological research.

(2) That's not even a scholarly article

(3) The APA is the world's most respected psychological association, it's far and above the Prince's Trust.

(4) In psychology we don't accept non-peer-reviewed research as being credible.

(5) Unless you can demonstrably show that the research we've presented is subject to 'political bias' your claims are irrelevant

(6) Unless you can demonstrably show that he APA is subject to 'political bias' your claims are irrelevant.

(7) It's a known fact that non-peer-reviewed research is far more likely to be inaccurate and have bias. Translation: The research you've presented is far more likely to be inaccurate than the research we've presented.

Is this really so hard to understand? Are you really actually this ignorant?

(2) Even if we grant that the research you've presented does apply, it doesn't support your position. The research you've provided discusses gender roles. If you're not familiar with what gender is, I would suggest taking a look at the wikipedia page for some basic information about gender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Gender is not one's sex. An anatomical male can have a woman gender; an anatomical female can have a man gender.

Gender roles are roles determined by society as to what any particular gender ought do -- i.e. how a particular gender should act. Since a female can have a man gender, they can also fill a man gender role.

Finally, the research you've presented merely talks about father-like figures, which merely mean a role model should be present in the child's life in some aspect -- not that a parent needs to be the role model.

So, if a parent does not need to fill the gender role model AND a female parent can fill a father gender role, your argument falls apart -- it's been proven to be false. The research you've presented does not support your conclusion.

Which part of the above do you not understand? Please, for the sake of clarity, be explicit with which part you do not understand.

(1) The APA is more respected than the Prince's Trust.

(2) The APA has existed as an organization since before the Prince's Trust and has been pioneering research in psychology with the goal of helping to further our understanding of human psychology since long before the Prince's Trust -- i.e. they've been around trying to help people since before the Prince's Trust even existed. In fact, it's been around for about 100 years longer than the Prince's Trust.

(3) In the world of psychology, the APA is considered to be the most reliable source one can have (i.e. above the Prince's Trust).

(4) The comparison you're trying to make is not valid -- political biases on climate change have no relevance to same-sex parenting research. And, of course, you've then gone on to claim that "political biases are present in all peer-reviewing!".

(a) Political biases are, in the vast majority of cases, not present in peer-reviewing.
(b) In social sciences, peer-reviewed research is seen to be the most accurate because the goal of peer-review is to remove political bias, among other things. Now, to clarify, since the Prince's Trust research has not been peer-reviewed, it is, according to simple probability, more likely to contain bias, errors, etc.

But, for the sake of simplicity, let's ignore all of the research that myself and others have presented. Looking only at the research which you've presented, our position is still supported -- and it's even supported by your research.

So please, try to understand how wrong you are, as I've taken the time to clearly spell out that your argument is not logically valid; your research does not apply; your research supports our position; and peer-reviewing is always taken to be more accurate than non-peer-reviewed research.