Child Of Lesbian Couple Speaks Against Same-sex Marriage.

[Derideo_Te]

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”

Yeah! Those psychologists and pediatricians have no idea what they're talking about. This political scientist on the other hand...

Scientists sent to prison for fraudulent conduct - University World News

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting article about research frauds going to prison

Nah, couldn't happen

I'm certainly not saying that psychologists and pediatricians would never lie. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that their word means nothing, because a political scientist said so.

These bodies are increasingly politicized and as a result they are facing membership declines, likely from people who object to the politicization of their field of study.

Here is a telling example. Anthropologists have disavowed science so as to free them to become political advocates:

Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights. . . . .

He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.​

On another front, have you been following GamerGate - the gaming press is more interested in furthering the social justice viewpoint than in being honest arbiters and reporters of what is happening in the gaming industry and they go so far as to tell their audience to bugger off if they don't like all the leftist agitprop being shoved down their throats.

When you point to a politicized statement from a group of professionals, you're merely relying on argument from authority, not on actual scientific evidence.

Typical distortion of the facts by Pastor Rikurzhen.

Anthropologists have disavowed science so as to free them to become political advocates:

The REALITY however is nothing remotely akin to Pastor Rikurzhen's egregious lies!

The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of Illinois, said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought to include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences, as well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so.

The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement still describes anthropology as a science.

Looks like you were exposed as a liar yet again by your own link!

 

[elektra]

People simply search for validity of their ideology on Google, google is a liberal source. Google is very much propaganda and is used as such.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

But, why is it that in an OP that gives voice to Orphans, the homosexual activist must ignore the OP and continue with the well designed propaganda.

Not for one second are the homosexual activists willing to listen to those not heard.

Freedom of speech is inconvenient for the homosexual activists.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

The OP obviously missed the irony given what he posted originally.

Nice try, I am sure your obfuscating will fool some, my OP is not claiming to link to science.

So instead of simply attacking, show us the actual science that you made the claim and reference to.

Irony, derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science". Are you drinking? Seems simple, I have not made a claim that I am running from, you are. Link to your science, quote the science, comment on the science.

How come the homosexual activist have so little understanding of what is simple, a family, how come they need science to explain the simple?



The OP is simply the testimony of one person.

 

[elektra]

Nobody allows the orphaned children to speak, and when an example is give, the homosexual activist will not discuss any fact the orphan presents.

It will be the law dictated by homosexual activist lawyers and judges that the silenced orphans must live with, on top of the grief they suffer losing both mother and father.

 

[Derideo_Te]

People simply search for validity of their ideology on Google, google is a liberal source. Google is very much propaganda and is used as such.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

But, why is it that in an OP that gives voice to Orphans, the homosexual activist must ignore the OP and continue with the well designed propaganda.

Not for one second are the homosexual activists willing to listen to those not heard.

Freedom of speech is inconvenient for the homosexual activists.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

The OP obviously missed the irony given what he posted originally.

Nice try, I am sure your obfuscating will fool some, my OP is not claiming to link to science.

So instead of simply attacking, show us the actual science that you made the claim and reference to.

Irony, derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science". Are you drinking? Seems simple, I have not made a claim that I am running from, you are. Link to your science, quote the science, comment on the science.

How come the homosexual activist have so little understanding of what is simple, a family, how come they need science to explain the simple?



The OP is simply the testimony of one person.

Your OP is an unsubstantiated rant by a homophobe exploiting the anguish of an adopted child.

derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science".

As far as the references to "science" in your OP goes;

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”[/QUOTE]

Note that the OP refers to both "data" and "science" (twice) so your squirming semantic evasion that it has nothing to do with "science" is an epic failure on your part.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nobody allows the orphaned children to speak, and when an example is give, the homosexual activist will not discuss any fact the orphan presents.

It will be the law dictated by homosexual activist lawyers and judges that the silenced orphans must live with, on top of the grief they suffer losing both mother and father.

BZZZT Wrong! Facts not in evidence!

 

[elektra]

People simply search for validity of their ideology on Google, google is a liberal source. Google is very much propaganda and is used as such.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

But, why is it that in an OP that gives voice to Orphans, the homosexual activist must ignore the OP and continue with the well designed propaganda.

Not for one second are the homosexual activists willing to listen to those not heard.

Freedom of speech is inconvenient for the homosexual activists.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

The OP obviously missed the irony given what he posted originally.

Nice try, I am sure your obfuscating will fool some, my OP is not claiming to link to science.

So instead of simply attacking, show us the actual science that you made the claim and reference to.

Irony, derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science". Are you drinking? Seems simple, I have not made a claim that I am running from, you are. Link to your science, quote the science, comment on the science.

How come the homosexual activist have so little understanding of what is simple, a family, how come they need science to explain the simple?



The OP is simply the testimony of one person.

Your OP is an unsubstantiated rant by a homophobe exploiting the anguish of an adopted child.

derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science".

As far as the references to "science" in your OP goes;

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”[/QUOTE]

Note that the OP refers to both "data" and "science" (twice) so your squirming semantic evasion that it has nothing to do with "science" is an epic failure on your part.

And in your rant, you validate the facts presented;

"The anguish of an adopted kid"

How does an kid adopted by homosexuals feel "anguish"

He should be happy and support the homosexuals, but he does not, he is broken, as you state, feeling anguish over the life you have dictated for him.

Sad you can not see the anguish while you admit that adoption by homosexuals led this child to feel anguish as an adult.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seems the only voice in this debate, is the voice of the Homosexual and the Activist. Now its time to here from the children being adopted into, "families". Children know right from wrong despite what the "experts", think.

Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage Denny Burk

Contrary to what the gay lobby claims, Lopez writes, children raised by same-sex parents “deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents.”

These children know they are “powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother,” he adds. And this decision comes with serious and often permanent consequences. For instance, they “feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them,” and long for a role model of the opposite sex.

While they love the people who raised them, they experience anger at their decision to deprive them of one or both biological parents—and “shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents.”

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”

Hyperbolic nonsense.

This individual is entitled to his opinion and to express it, provided it's understood that it is in fact only one person's opinion: subjective, anecdotal, and not representative of all children with same-sex parents.

Consequently it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of same-sex couples and their right to equal protection of the law and their right to access marriage law pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

The failed. premise of the OP is nothing more than demagoguery and fear-mongering.

 

[Derideo_Te]

People simply search for validity of their ideology on Google, google is a liberal source. Google is very much propaganda and is used as such.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

But, why is it that in an OP that gives voice to Orphans, the homosexual activist must ignore the OP and continue with the well designed propaganda.

Not for one second are the homosexual activists willing to listen to those not heard.

Freedom of speech is inconvenient for the homosexual activists.

So if you think science and studies are valid, I would like to read the study, not an article telling me what to think the study ir science is.

The OP obviously missed the irony given what he posted originally.

Nice try, I am sure your obfuscating will fool some, my OP is not claiming to link to science.

So instead of simply attacking, show us the actual science that you made the claim and reference to.

Irony, derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science". Are you drinking? Seems simple, I have not made a claim that I am running from, you are. Link to your science, quote the science, comment on the science.

How come the homosexual activist have so little understanding of what is simple, a family, how come they need science to explain the simple?



The OP is simply the testimony of one person.

Your OP is an unsubstantiated rant by a homophobe exploiting the anguish of an adopted child.

derideo te makes unsubstantiated claims about science, than posts as if the OP is making a claim in reference to "science".

As far as the references to "science" in your OP goes;

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”[/QUOTE]

Note that the OP refers to both "data" and "science" (twice) so your squirming semantic evasion that it has nothing to do with "science" is an epic failure on your part.

And in your rant, you validate the facts presented;

"The anguish of an adopted kid"

How does an kid adopted by homosexuals feel "anguish"

He should be happy and support the homosexuals, but he does not, he is broken, as you state, feeling anguish over the life you have dictated for him.

Sad you can not see the anguish while you admit that adoption by homosexuals led this child to feel anguish as an adult.

Your comprehension leaves a lot of room for improvement. So does your honesty and integrity.

You were exposed as being wrong about "science" in your own OP but you lack the honesty and integrity to admit that your allegation about me was utterly baseless per the quotations from your own OP.

Then you attempt a puerile deflection as if the basis of the ADOPTED child's anguish has not already been discussed in your own thread. To reiterate for the slow learners, many adopted children have issues simply because they wonder what their lives might have been like had they not been put up for adoption. They have a sense of "abandonment" which is the basis for their anguish and it occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual households.

So it was utterly disingenuous of the author of that article, that you mindlessly quoted in your OP, to pretend that it had anything at all to do with being "raised by two lesbians". However lackwits like yourself are incapable of grasping the significance of adoption and don't think it through because you are way more interested is pushing your vile homophobic agenda instead of dealing with the scientific FACTS that refute your drivel.

 

[elektra]

Seems the only voice in this debate, is the voice of the Homosexual and the Activist. Now its time to here from the children being adopted into, "families". Children know right from wrong despite what the "experts", think.

Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage Denny Burk

Contrary to what the gay lobby claims, Lopez writes, children raised by same-sex parents “deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents.”

These children know they are “powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother,” he adds. And this decision comes with serious and often permanent consequences. For instance, they “feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them,” and long for a role model of the opposite sex.

While they love the people who raised them, they experience anger at their decision to deprive them of one or both biological parents—and “shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents.”

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”

Hyperbolic nonsense.

This individual is entitled to his opinion and to express it, provided it's understood that it is in fact only one person's opinion: subjective, anecdotal, and not representative of all children with same-sex parents.

Consequently it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of same-sex couples and their right to equal protection of the law and their right to access marriage law pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

The failed. premise of the OP is nothing more than demagoguery and fear-mongering.

I know, the only voice to be heard is that of homosexuality and those who support it.

Those who are living witnesses, children who are adopted by homosexuals will not be allowed to testify, these children are the facts yet they are to be discredited.

 

[Pop23]

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
The percentage of hetero couples compared to the percentage of same sex couples and then find the percentage of "so-called" troubled children from each category, that is the percentage that you compare.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

But try doing the percentage of troubled children from hetero sexual couples and compared to same sex couples.
Get back to us when the math makes sense.

And we all know how wonderful conventional marriage parenting is and how their offspring turn out.

seems more an indictment of same-sex parenting than same-sex marriage.
it also seems like the lamentation is that not having a heterosexual couple for parents a child will miss the absent gender.

I wonder what a child of a single parent, or a child in foster care, would think about rejecting a loving parent because they aren't the right gender?

You mean the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all people that ever walked the face of the planet?

Overall, not bad

You think the percentage is different? 99.9999999999999999999999999 % of all people are from the same source

Of course 100% of all people are from opposite sex coupling.

Tell me you knew that

Same sex coupling has never produced a child.

Sorry if you were unaware if that

 

[elektra]

Testimony and fact are not a premise.

 

[Pop23]

Really?
You believe this to be true.
Explain then in vitro fertilization to us. Please.

Excellent reasoning you must be some product of a charter school.
All other and real conventional wisdom arrives at a more reasonable statement.
Keep on trucking.
-

And we all know how wonderful conventional marriage parenting is and how their offspring turn out.

All children from heterosexual couples turn out to be well adjusted adults, and all children from gay couples turn out messed up. If a child who is messed up comes from what seems to be a heterosexual couple then one of them is probably a tranny. Somebody alert Novasteve!

All people are from opposite sex coupling.

Is this some sort of a surprise?

Explain what?

In Vitro REQUIRES a contribution of

1. A male

2. A female.

Google "the birds and the bees"

 

[Pop23]

BTW heterosexual couples have been producing homosexual offspring since the beginning of time...

oh my, what went wrong???

I don't think we've been thanked though. What's with that?

I can send you some home brew for your troubles.

Atta boy!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
The percentage of hetero couples compared to the percentage of same sex couples and then find the percentage of "so-called" troubled children from each category, that is the percentage that you compare.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

But try doing the percentage of troubled children from hetero sexual couples and compared to same sex couples.
Get back to us when the math makes sense.

And we all know how wonderful conventional marriage parenting is and how their offspring turn out.

You mean the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all people that ever walked the face of the planet?

Overall, not bad

You think the percentage is different? 99.9999999999999999999999999 % of all people are from the same source

Of course 100% of all people are from opposite sex coupling.

Tell me you knew that

Same sex coupling has never produced a child.

Sorry if you were unaware if that

And?

 

[elektra]

BTW heterosexual couples have been producing homosexual offspring since the beginning of time...

oh my, what went wrong???

Nothing is perfect in the world.

 

[Pop23]

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
The percentage of hetero couples compared to the percentage of same sex couples and then find the percentage of "so-called" troubled children from each category, that is the percentage that you compare.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

But try doing the percentage of troubled children from hetero sexual couples and compared to same sex couples.
Get back to us when the math makes sense.

You mean the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all people that ever walked the face of the planet?

Overall, not bad

You think the percentage is different? 99.9999999999999999999999999 % of all people are from the same source

Of course 100% of all people are from opposite sex coupling.

Tell me you knew that

Same sex coupling has never produced a child.

Sorry if you were unaware if that

And?

The opposite is never true

You probably understand that, Right?

 

[elektra]

Nnhnnnk mmmkkDDXKMNN

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seems the only voice in this debate, is the voice of the Homosexual and the Activist. Now its time to here from the children being adopted into, "families". Children know right from wrong despite what the "experts", think.

Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage Denny Burk

Contrary to what the gay lobby claims, Lopez writes, children raised by same-sex parents “deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents.”

These children know they are “powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother,” he adds. And this decision comes with serious and often permanent consequences. For instance, they “feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them,” and long for a role model of the opposite sex.

While they love the people who raised them, they experience anger at their decision to deprive them of one or both biological parents—and “shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents.”

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”

A child rebelling against his parents. lol, how novel.

 

[elektra]

Seems the only voice in this debate, is the voice of the Homosexual and the Activist. Now its time to here from the children being adopted into, "families". Children know right from wrong despite what the "experts", think.

Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage Denny Burk

Contrary to what the gay lobby claims, Lopez writes, children raised by same-sex parents “deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents.”

These children know they are “powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother,” he adds. And this decision comes with serious and often permanent consequences. For instance, they “feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them,” and long for a role model of the opposite sex.

While they love the people who raised them, they experience anger at their decision to deprive them of one or both biological parents—and “shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents.”

The so-called “consensus” by psychologists and pediatricians on the soundness of same-sex parenting is, Lopez writes, “frankly bogus.” The truth is, there is no data to support that assertion.

Instead, as political scientists Leon Kass of the University of Chicago and Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University note, “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must rest necessarily on ideology”—and “ideology is not science.”

A child rebelling against his parents. lol, how novel.

Yet, relevant.

 

[Valerie]

I know, the only voice to be heard is that of homosexuality and those who support it.

Those who are living witnesses, children who are adopted by homosexuals will not be allowed to testify, these children are the facts yet they are to be discredited.

is your premise that children of heterosexuals never feel "anguish" ?