HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, weasel, you are both a fool and wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I didn't say that, asshole. Asshole is all you ever have to offer. YOU claim gender is irrelevant, nature doesn't.

Nature and reproduction have nothing to do with parenting.

Reproduction doesn't happen without nature, political correctness can't make it go away. Gender confuses you, we get it. But the rest of us understand men and women bring different things to the kid's upbringing. Mississippi wants it left that way and I don't blame them.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Parenting Doesn't Have to Be 'One Man, One Woman' - NYTimes.com

Does the gender of parents really matter?

 

[Seawytch]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

Wrong. Studies show that the children of queers, raised by two queers, have all the same problems as children of single parents. Married hetero parents stand head and shoulders above mentally ill queers who pretend they're married.

No, that's not what studies show.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

I said what I was talking about. Can't you read? Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders? That isn't what they ruled on. You through the word discrimination around like there should be no such thing, but making wise choices demands discrimination, one has to decide which is better, this or that?

They are saying kids are better off in opposite gender relationships, like nature designed. Your hurt feelings aren't relevant.

Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders?

...........

Both in Windsor and in Obergefell old sport. They said that, in effect they are the same and therefor must be treated the same. In the first case, with respect to federal benefits and in the second case, with respect to marriage. However, I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that, since it's apparent that you don't know or understand much of anything-except what the voices in your head, and Mike Huckabee are telling you.

As far as patenting and what children need is concerned, I have been all through that with you before. I presented the research date. I made my case. You can continue to bloviate all you want about them needing a mother and a father-that does not make it true. It's just an appeal to ignorance.

My hurt feeling? What makes you think that my feelings are hurt or that you are capable of hurting them?

Your lingo betrays your feelings. I don't care who writes what, if you are arrogant enough to believe you can alter what nature and gender means or is you're a fool. Just because we have plenty of fools in government doesn't make it go away. I agree with Mississippi that a man and a woman give a child the best chances for a healthy development.

Normal people know it, homosexuals can't figure it out, we get it.

I have a couple of important questions for you Weasel and for anyone else opposed to gay adoption, but first a few points and facts:

I don’t know why you think this is about me. I don’t actually have a personal stake in it. However, I have made child advocacy and lifelong pursuit and providing as many options for children who are in need of adoption is vital. I also have a commitment to the civil rights of all of my fellow citizens.

Now pay attention. There are about 100,000 children nationwide in need of an adopted family. In addition, most people who want to adopt want a very young and healthy child while many children who are “in the system” are neither. http://purelocal.com/landing.aspx?slk=children+waiting+adoption&nid=2&cid=7539561306&kwid=20930673350&akwd=children%20waiting%20adoption&dmt=b&bmt=bb&dist=s&uq=mississippi%20children%20needing%20adoption&device=c&ismobile=false&msclkid=a7c469acc60b4c3ab99ebbef6f7f35f5&vx=0

In addition consider this:

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

• An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

It is clear that if gay and lesbians were excluded from the pool of potential adoptive parents, that some children will not be adopted, who otherwise might have been. Those children do not have either a mother or a father.

Now the questions. Please try to answer honestly. Try to show us that you care about the children and are not just a bigoted scum who wishes to punish gays at all costs even if the children are collateral damage:

1. Given the information above, do you still support the ban on adoption by gays, even if it means that some children will grow up in the system without either a legal mother or father? Would that be better? If so why?
   
   
2. Given the number of children- often the biological child- who are already in the care of a gay person , should the state continue to prohibit adoption as a second parent by a partner of that gay parent, when doing so will deprive that child of having the security of two legal parents? If so why? ( Keeping in mind that the child in question will be physically with that same sex couple regardless)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They need a male/female pair to reproduce. They don't "raise" the animal together.

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

Wrong. Studies show that the children of queers, raised by two queers, have all the same problems as children of single parents. Married hetero parents stand head and shoulders above mentally ill queers who pretend they're married.

Horseshit! Post just one study that says that. Just one.

 

[koshergrl]

Huh? They believe child raising is best done with a male and female. I realize that's hard for people to grasp that can't understand gender.

Animals don't "believe" shit. Child rearing is in many, many, cases done by the female alone. The male only has to impregnate and in some cases defend the offspring.

Who's talking about animals? You want to marry your dog or something? Yes, kids are sometimes raised in less than ideal circumstances, that wasn't the question. What's best for the kid should be more important that pleasing homosexuals by lying and saying their relationships are equally. No gay got here via gay relationships, that would be a clue to a normal person.

What's best for children is to have two parents who are married to each other. The gender or orientation of the parents is irrelevant. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

Wrong. Studies show that the children of queers, raised by two queers, have all the same problems as children of single parents. Married hetero parents stand head and shoulders above mentally ill queers who pretend they're married.

Horseshit! Post just one study that says that. Just one.

" On multiple outcomes, the children of mothers who had lesbian relationships fared poorly, whether those mothers had a partner in the household with their children or not, and these two groups were more like each other than like the intact biological family (IBF) category. As Regnerus notes, “adult children who report a maternal same-sex relationship—regardless of whether their mother ever resided with her same-sex partner—look far more similar to adult children of other types of household than they do to those from stably-intact biological families.”

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

" When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures."

Family Research Council

 

[koshergrl]

"“The American Psychological Association has declared that there are no differences in the parenting capacity of same-sex couples as compared with heterosexual married couples,” he told CNA March 3.
"However, he explained, “This declaration is based largely on evidence from studies using small ‘convenience samples,’ and it has had a chilling effect on research, while it conveys a misleading message for the public debate.”

The misleading message, for those too stupid to understand English, is that the children of homo parents are just as well off as the children of heteros.

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say - Washington Times

 

[koshergrl]

And here's another study:

"Published by the Princeton, N.J.-based Witherspoon Institute, the studies in the “No Differences?” book indicate some significant statistical differences between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by married parents.
"The children raised in same-sex households resemble those raised by never-married single women, facing “relatively troubled outcomes” like higher rates of drug abuse, unemployment and dropping out of school.
"Mr. Londregan said that the “relative instability” of same-sex couples compared to married heterosexual parents could be the primary factor in the different outcomes for children."

Paraphrase for idiots: Homos are unstable and therefore shitty parents, whether they're married or not.

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

 

[koshergrl]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

What are you talking about? No one said that they are the same thing. HOWEVER.....just as with marriage, if gay people are going to be treated differently than straight people with respect to adoption, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so- it is DISCRIMINATION.

And, as with marriage, if the state will not protect people against discrimination, it is necessary and appropriate for the federal courts to step in and apply the US constitution.

In addition, children also have rights-the right to a stable and secure home. The right to be adopted when that would benefit them. There are children who are already in the care of gay people but who can't be adopted by that gay persons partner as a second parent in Miss. As such those children are being treated differently than the children of heterosexuals and that too is discrimination.

No, just as with marriage, there is nothing in the constitution about adoption. There does not have to be.

I said what I was talking about. Can't you read? Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders? That isn't what they ruled on. You through the word discrimination around like there should be no such thing, but making wise choices demands discrimination, one has to decide which is better, this or that?

They are saying kids are better off in opposite gender relationships, like nature designed. Your hurt feelings aren't relevant.

Where does the Constitution or the Supreme Court case state that same gender marriages were no different that opposite genders?

...........

Both in Windsor and in Obergefell old sport. They said that, in effect they are the same and therefor must be treated the same. In the first case, with respect to federal benefits and in the second case, with respect to marriage. However, I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that, since it's apparent that you don't know or understand much of anything-except what the voices in your head, and Mike Huckabee are telling you.

As far as patenting and what children need is concerned, I have been all through that with you before. I presented the research date. I made my case. You can continue to bloviate all you want about them needing a mother and a father-that does not make it true. It's just an appeal to ignorance.

My hurt feeling? What makes you think that my feelings are hurt or that you are capable of hurting them?

Your lingo betrays your feelings. I don't care who writes what, if you are arrogant enough to believe you can alter what nature and gender means or is you're a fool. Just because we have plenty of fools in government doesn't make it go away. I agree with Mississippi that a man and a woman give a child the best chances for a healthy development.

Normal people know it, homosexuals can't figure it out, we get it.

I have a couple of important questions for you Weasel and for anyone else opposed to gay adoption, but first a few points and facts:

I don’t know why you think this is about me. I don’t actually have a personal stake in it. However, I have made child advocacy and lifelong pursuit and providing as many options for children who are in need of adoption is vital. I also have a commitment to the civil rights of all of my fellow citizens.

Now pay attention. There are about 100,000 children nationwide in need of an adopted family. In addition, most people who want to adopt want a very young and healthy child while many children who are “in the system” are neither. http://purelocal.com/landing.aspx?slk=children+waiting+adoption&nid=2&cid=7539561306&kwid=20930673350&akwd=children%20waiting%20adoption&dmt=b&bmt=bb&dist=s&uq=mississippi%20children%20needing%20adoption&device=c&ismobile=false&msclkid=a7c469acc60b4c3ab99ebbef6f7f35f5&vx=0

In addition consider this:

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

• An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

It is clear that if gay and lesbians were excluded from the pool of potential adoptive parents, that some children will not be adopted, who otherwise might have been. Those children do not have either a mother or a father.

Now the questions. Please try to answer honestly. Try to show us that you care about the children and are not just a bigoted scum who wishes to punish gays at all costs even if the children are collateral damage:

1. Given the information above, do you still support the ban on adoption by gays, even if it means that some children will grow up in the system without either a legal mother or father? Would that be better? If so why?
   
   
2. Given the number of children- often the biological child- who are already in the care of a gay person , should the state continue to prohibit adoption as a second parent by a partner of that gay parent, when doing so will deprive that child of having the security of two legal parents? If so why? ( Keeping in mind that the child in question will be physically with that same sex couple regardless)

Who gives a shit about garbage spewed by screwballs whose primary objective is to get kids into the hands of degenerates?

Not me, and not the majority of the American people.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have a couple of important questions for you Weasel and for anyone else opposed to gay adoption, but first a few points and facts:

Now pay attention. There are about 100,000 children nationwide in need of an adopted family. In addition, most people who want to adopt want a very young and healthy child while many children who are “in the system” are neither. http://purelocal.com/landing.aspx?slk=children+waiting+adoption&nid=2&cid=7539561306&kwid=20930673350&akwd=children%20waiting%20adoption&dmt=b&bmt=bb&dist=s&uq=mississippi%20children%20needing%20adoption&device=c&ismobile=false&msclkid=a7c469acc60b4c3ab99ebbef6f7f35f5&vx=0

In addition consider this:

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

• An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

It is clear that if gay and lesbians were excluded from the pool of potential adoptive parents, that some children will not be adopted, who otherwise might have been. Those children do not have either a mother or a father.

Now the questions. Please try to answer honestly. Try to show us that you care about the children and are not just a bigoted scum who wishes to punish gays at all costs even if the children are collateral damage:

1. Given the information above, do you still support the ban on adoption by gays, even if it means that some children will grow up in the system without either a legal mother or father? Would that be better? If so why?
   
   
2. Given the number of children- often the biological child- who are already in the care of a gay person , should the state continue to prohibit adoption as a second parent by a partner of that gay parent, when doing so will deprive that child of having the security of two legal parents? If so why? ( Keeping in mind that the child in question will be physically with that same sex couple regardless)

The problem is that I've known MANY couples that could not find a child, looking year after year. Good folks, good homes, many had kids already. Some went offshore and you'll find many church organizations just for that purpose, hooking people up with foreign kids because they can't find them here.

What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.

The bottom line is that genders play different roles in a family. Everyone I know had similar mom and dad experience, unless they were single, which was not common at all when I was young. That's the best case scenario for kids. If there were no other options I wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster. But that's a big if from mu own experiences.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

One of the perks of legal marriage is adoption qualification. That is the main reason legal marriage for homos should not be allowed. Children need both a mother and a father, not one or two of either. That is based on recent empirical data. Homofascists and lefties need to progress on that issue.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no need for me to post anything different when what I post is empirical and that no one has refuted it. You can't just wish for the absolute. And homo parents are not and cannot be parents. It takes opposite gender to procreate. Always has and until cloning becomes reality it always will.

Repeating yourself over an over again isn't proof. This is what proof looks like.

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents

Children need a mother and a father. Not just two moms or just two dads or just a mother. Look at the data instead of cherry-picked, anecdotal, agenda-driven propaganda. Look at the bigger picture. Your bias contributes to social demise.

No, they don't...as ALL the data shows. It's you who is allowing his biases to color his view.

They need a mother and a father. Get past the 1960's and look at the reality.

The rich irony of you telling me to stop thinking from the past? All the DATA (you know, like actual evidence) that has been provided you has been recent. All the studies provided you have occured in the last decade and they all say the same thing; There is no difference in outcomes between the children of gays and the children of straights.

Children need two parents for the best outcomes, the gender is immaterial.

You completely missed the point because you've been duped, probably willingly.
It's not about whether either or both of the parents are homo. It's about having a mother and a father.

 

[Seawytch]

Repeating yourself over an over again isn't proof. This is what proof looks like.

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents

Children need a mother and a father. Not just two moms or just two dads or just a mother. Look at the data instead of cherry-picked, anecdotal, agenda-driven propaganda. Look at the bigger picture. Your bias contributes to social demise.

No, they don't...as ALL the data shows. It's you who is allowing his biases to color his view.

They need a mother and a father. Get past the 1960's and look at the reality.

The rich irony of you telling me to stop thinking from the past? All the DATA (you know, like actual evidence) that has been provided you has been recent. All the studies provided you have occured in the last decade and they all say the same thing; There is no difference in outcomes between the children of gays and the children of straights.

Children need two parents for the best outcomes, the gender is immaterial.

You completely missed the point because you've been duped, probably willingly.
It's not about whether either or both of the parents are homo. It's about having a mother and a father.

Are you incapable of reading? ALL studies show the exact opposite of what you claim.

Kids don't need a mother and father, they need parents.

 

[Seawytch]

And kosher provided links to a study so flawed it was laughed out of court.

Michigan Judge Delivers Devastating Blow to Junk Scientist Regnerus

A “reality check” for the Regnerus study on gay parenting [UPDATED]

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Children need a mother and a father. Not just two moms or just two dads or just a mother. Look at the data instead of cherry-picked, anecdotal, agenda-driven propaganda. Look at the bigger picture. Your bias contributes to social demise.

No, they don't...as ALL the data shows. It's you who is allowing his biases to color his view.

They need a mother and a father. Get past the 1960's and look at the reality.

The rich irony of you telling me to stop thinking from the past? All the DATA (you know, like actual evidence) that has been provided you has been recent. All the studies provided you have occured in the last decade and they all say the same thing; There is no difference in outcomes between the children of gays and the children of straights.

Children need two parents for the best outcomes, the gender is immaterial.

You completely missed the point because you've been duped, probably willingly.
It's not about whether either or both of the parents are homo. It's about having a mother and a father.

Are you incapable of reading? ALL studies show the exact opposite of what you claim.

Kids don't need a mother and father, they need parents.

You need to stop dealing with cherry-picked studies and look at reality. Every jurisdiction in this country that has pluralities and majorities of families missing a parent are failing. Post 1960's phenomenon.
Get with the program.

 

[paddymurphy]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

One of the perks of legal marriage is adoption qualification. That is the main reason legal marriage for homos should not be allowed. Children need both a mother and a father, not one or two of either. That is based on recent empirical data. Homofascists and lefties need to progress on that issue.

"Recent empirical data." that you cannot produce.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gay marriage and adoption aren't the same thing. Why try to twist it to be the same? It should be up to the state unless you can point out Constitutional adoption rights.

One of the perks of legal marriage is adoption qualification. That is the main reason legal marriage for homos should not be allowed. Children need both a mother and a father, not one or two of either. That is based on recent empirical data. Homofascists and lefties need to progress on that issue.

"Recent empirical data." that you cannot produce.

Only every predominantly black jurisdiction in the country. And it transcends socioeconomics.

 

[theHawk]

I found this story out of backwards Mississippi particularly disturbing in light of the enormous gains made by LGBT people in recent years and culminating in the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. This stance on adoption not only goes against the tide of the evolving standards of human decency by perpetuating discrimination, but also harms children who are in need of a loving home as well as those who are currently in the care of gay people and who could benefit by a second parent adoption by the legal parent’s partner.

This policy is especially irrational and hateful in view of the fact that Mississippi is the only state in the country with such a ban in place. Moreover, many states have been allowing adoption by gay people long before marriage was even on the radar. In my state of New Jersey, joint adoption by same sex couples has been allowed since 1997, the first state to officially do so. It was not much of an issue then and it certainly is not one now. How is it possible that two states in the United States are existing is such a disparate moral, logical and legal reality?

Gov. Bryant’s support of a state law that enshrines discrimination is shameful, especially coming at a time when it is imperative that we find permanent families and safe, loving homes for every child - including many in Mississippi currently in foster care,” said Rob Hill, HRC Mississippi State Director. “We call on Attorney General Jim Hood to come down on the right side of history -- don’t defend the ban, allow it to become another discarded artifact of discrimination.”
HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban Human Rights Campaign

The case presents challenges to the ban from the perspective of a parent who is unable to receive legal recognition of her parental status because her spouse is the child’s legal parent and also a woman; it also challenges the prohibition of a same-sex couple to adopt a child through the foster care system. Despite the discriminatory ban, which has been in place since 2000, Mississippi has the highest number of LGBT people raising children.

“With one-third of Mississippi’s 3,484 same-sex couples already raising children and 100 Mississippi youth in foster care waiting for loving adoptive homes, shame on the governor for trying to keep Mississippi tethered to a discriminatory past.” Hill said.
HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban Human Rights Campaign

August 12, 2015 by HRC staff

If fags want to raise kids, let them make their own. Queers are not entitled to other people's children. Parents giving up their children have a right to decide who it goes to. Unless the parents consent to letting queers adopt their child, queers don't have any rights to them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I found this story out of backwards Mississippi particularly disturbing in light of the enormous gains made by LGBT people in recent years and culminating in the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. This stance on adoption not only goes against the tide of the evolving standards of human decency by perpetuating discrimination, but also harms children who are in need of a loving home as well as those who are currently in the care of gay people and who could benefit by a second parent adoption by the legal parent’s partner.

This policy is especially irrational and hateful in view of the fact that Mississippi is the only state in the country with such a ban in place. Moreover, many states have been allowing adoption by gay people long before marriage was even on the radar. In my state of New Jersey, joint adoption by same sex couples has been allowed since 1997, the first state to officially do so. It was not much of an issue then and it certainly is not one now. How is it possible that two states in the United States are existing is such a disparate moral, logical and legal reality?

Gov. Bryant’s support of a state law that enshrines discrimination is shameful, especially coming at a time when it is imperative that we find permanent families and safe, loving homes for every child - including many in Mississippi currently in foster care,” said Rob Hill, HRC Mississippi State Director. “We call on Attorney General Jim Hood to come down on the right side of history -- don’t defend the ban, allow it to become another discarded artifact of discrimination.”
HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban Human Rights Campaign

The case presents challenges to the ban from the perspective of a parent who is unable to receive legal recognition of her parental status because her spouse is the child’s legal parent and also a woman; it also challenges the prohibition of a same-sex couple to adopt a child through the foster care system. Despite the discriminatory ban, which has been in place since 2000, Mississippi has the highest number of LGBT people raising children.

“With one-third of Mississippi’s 3,484 same-sex couples already raising children and 100 Mississippi youth in foster care waiting for loving adoptive homes, shame on the governor for trying to keep Mississippi tethered to a discriminatory past.” Hill said.
HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban Human Rights Campaign

August 12, 2015 by HRC staff

If fags want to raise kids, let them make their own. Queers are not entitled to other people's children. Parents giving up their children have a right to decide who it goes to. Unless the parents consent to letting queers adopt their child, queers don't have any rights to them.

Thank you for that thoughtful, cogent and intelligent response to a serious and important topic that effects the well being of children . You are a wonderful example of a human being.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And here's another study:

"Published by the Princeton, N.J.-based Witherspoon Institute, the studies in the “No Differences?” book indicate some significant statistical differences between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by married parents.
"The children raised in same-sex households resemble those raised by never-married single women, facing “relatively troubled outcomes” like higher rates of drug abuse, unemployment and dropping out of school.
"Mr. Londregan said that the “relative instability” of same-sex couples compared to married heterosexual parents could be the primary factor in the different outcomes for children."

Paraphrase for idiots: Homos are unstable and therefore shitty parents, whether they're married or not.

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

First of all Londrgan is associated with the Witherspoon Institute which clearly has a bias . The Witherspoon Institute was founded in 2003 by, among others, Princeton University professor and noted conservativeRobert P. George,[3][4][2] Luis Tellez, and others involved with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.[2][5] The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] Witherspoon Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Londregan acknowledged, research into children’s outcomes faces obstacles in that that there are “relatively few” households led by same-sex couples that are raising children. A researcher therefore must survey “a huge number of people” to find enough households to make inferences.

More significantly ,the survey compares children raised by same-sex couples (Not MARRIED same sex couples) and children raised by married parents. At the same time he talks about family stability and seems to ignore the issue of marriage as a stabilizing factor for a couple.

Londregan who teaches politics and international affairs –not child psychology- did not actually conduct a study of his own, but rather wrote a book consisting of a survey of studies which he critiqued. There is no indication when or these studies took place –you would have to obtain the book for that-and they may well have been at a time and place that marriage was not available to gay people. He cites one study that purportedly shows that female “partners” are twice as likely to break up as a married heterosexual couple. But again, does not indicate if the same sex couple was married or if they even could have been married.

In the very article that you link to there is this caption “Most of the children of gays and lesbians who have filed court briefs in gay marriage cases say their parents' inability to marry has deprived them of legal protections and hampered them from living their otherwise-typical lives. NOT because they are of the same sex.

He also cites the work of Mark Regnerus. This guy is a charlatan and a fraud who was discredited and kicked out of court in Michigan and who was disavowed by his own university. More on him later. It was the Witherspoon Institute that funded Regnerus’ bogus work. Witherspoon Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lastly, he did not conclude that same sex parenting was inferior, he said that the differences between children of same-sex couples and those raised by a mother and a father are “still an open question” depending on the sample size and other conditions a study controls for.

Now getting back to relationship and family stability in same sex relationships……

There is a lot of conflicting and biased information out there on the longevity of gay relationships. If those relationships are in fact shorter or less stable, it does not mean that it is a direct result of being gay, or the nature of being gay. I think that one needs to look at specific time frames and places and determine the extent of social acceptance and support as one possible intervening variables

All minorities face pressures and stresses on their relationships that other do not. It could also be that couples who are motivated to adopt are more stable and committed than others. And don't forget, when it comes to adoption, there is extensive screening to assess the relationship. Therefore, if at some point in time or in some place gays fair less well in terms of longevity, that is not a good reason to deny adoption to gays because 1) many do stay together and 2) straight couples do not have a great track record either. Maybe as a society, we should find ways to support loving relationships instead of condemning, marginalizing and undermining them. Maybe then we would have more stable and nurturing intact homes for the kids that everybody claims to care about. However, as I've said before, it's often apparent to me that the children are just being used as pawns to advance the anti-gay agenda. Having said that, I will share this with you:.

LGBT Stats New Data from Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples -

A series of analyses based on data gathered from state administrative agencies in early 2014 show patterns of relationship recognition for same-sex couples across the U.S. –

The second analysis found that, on average, 1.1% of same-sex couples dissolve their legal relationships each year. This rate is lower than the annual divorce rate for married different-sex couples (2%). Click here for “Patterns of Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples: Divorce and Terminations”

The third analysis suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Windsor case in 2013 likely contributed to a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples marrying—even in the states that had marriage equality long before the decision. The administrative data show that the number of same-sex couples who married nearly doubled in marriage equality states from 2012 to 2013 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/windsor-graphic.jpg

Much has changed in the last decade and much of the data on same sex relationships goes back at least that far. The only way to actually establish that the fundamental nature of gay relationships results in their doing less well in certain area of life like marriage, is to do an empirical controlled study. That would entail controlling for a myriad of intervening variables including but not limited to the level of support and approval by family and the community, the availability of legal marriage, and the presence or absence of discriminatory laws which marginalize people and undermine relationships.

Finally, I ask you, even if it can be shown that gay relationships are more fragile than others, what are we going to use as a benchmark for success At what percentage of failed marriages, we will not approve of or support those relationships. Will we apply those same standards to other groups, such as the poor or undereducated who may have a higher rate of failed relationships?

And let’s not forget that this is about the children. As I previously documented, there are perhaps two million children currently in the care of gay people. Do we write them off as collateral damage by not affording rights to their parents-rights that can only have the effect of helping them do a better job at parenting, and give them a better chance of stability in their relationships?