Have you lived there? How would you know that?

Because all of the Midwest is pretty much the same.

Well I have no problem with gay parents, but from a purely objective point of view you can't just say that there wouldn't be any difference without evidence. It seems that there is such evidence, but to assume without it that they were just as good at parenting would be premature. Science doesn't work on assumptions.

Hmm. But science is nothing more than a lottery, when it comes to things like that. Assume you check out 100 straight parents, and 100 gay parents, and let's say all of the 100 gay parents suck, than the rating would be: 0% of gay parents are good at parenting.
All I say is something objective: I say, there are good parents, and bad parents, and it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is...WHY should it?
How does your sexual orientation differ your character? You can be gay, and still be a right-wing conservative sob, that beats his children, because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Or you can be a soft-fluffy gay and overhug your children, so they become weak and soft and fluffy. Yeah, all of that is possible, but such studies are only correct if you check EVERY single one. Otherwise those stories are nothing more than an assumption.

My example: Imagine, that you want to make a study about how people feel about Marilyn Manson. You are out on the streets and ask people about it. You really want to be objective, but subconsciously, you start asking those, that look a bit like they would like the music (dark clothing, black make up, dark hair) and Voilà!, your whole study is a lot of bull****.

Studies don't prove ANYTHING, unless you ask all the people in the world, or at least all the people in a country. You can't just ask 1000 people and think it's a study now. Oh, have you heard about the study by "very important sciency study thing studying very sciency science stuff"? they asked 100000 hillbillies if gay people should marry. They said no. All of them. So gay marriage should be illegal, because 100% of the people think they shouldnt marry. Science sucks monkey ass. (except physics)

What? With the right sample size chance stops becoming an issue. People will fall in line with the statistics regardless of what one person in the study might think that doesn't fall in line with expectations. If I flip a coin six times I might come up with six heads. Statistically speaking I should get three tails and three heads, but with such a small number of flips my experiment would still be affected by chance. But if I flipped that same coin a thousand times I would get about five hundred heads and five hundred tails give or take.


Sample size determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stratified sampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sampling (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda off-topic but when they were debating about gay marriages at the parliament, some people started to quote The Bible and I must confess, I laughed first and then I even cried a bit. And laughed more.

I mean, nothing against Bible as such, but should we also prevent women from taking a part of talking publicly or voting or whatever, or should we kill those whose have been untrue to their companies, or what? And sorry to bother, but that irritates me.

Exactly. The law of large numbers basically.

Seriously? Screw Statistics.

There are lies damn lies and then there are statistics. You are putting your faith in the wrong thing bro.

read the books of mose. you will laugh your ass off, if you see what **** is in the bible. did you know that, if you want an (unmarried!) girl, and she doesn't want to, the bible tells you to kill her family, shave all her hair off and lock her in a room without light for 3 weeks, so she can get over her dead family (you have to shave her hair off, so she doesn't get lice) and after you get her out you're allowed to marry her. cool book, the bible? ...i've read it too often to respect it even 1% ...

IM NOT CONVINCED YOU ARE NOT A SPAMBOT. What bible do you have?