Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[PJC]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/290844-the-history-behind-normalizing-homosexuality.html peace...

Once you've read the OP, go to the 4th page, about 14th post down by drifter, to have micro-mal's theories spanked and thrashed.

 

[jtpr312]

[

So here we have one more lazy scrote that want's someone else to do their homework for them. Sheesh, you freaking people are morons.

http://New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

http://Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families ...

http://How does being raised by a single parent affect children
Several large-scale studies have shown that children of single-parent households fare worse in life on most measurements (happiness, achievement, self-image ...

Educate yourself dumbass. Start with reading the studies there site reference, when you're done drop me a line.

None of your links actually go anywhere...

And again, your studies as you describe them are about SINGLE parent households, NOT households with two parents of the same gender.

Do you have any studies on THAT subject?

The studies show that children do best when raised by both a mother and a father. Common sense says the same. As for studies on kids raised by same sex couples, there's a group of these people, grown now, who are speaking about their problems growing up in such deviant households.




an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.
http://http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

 

[jtpr312]

No, every study shows that kids do best in intact households, the gender of the parents is immaterial. What study after study of our children does show is that they are at no disadvantage to yours.

Well of course you're a liar with a pro-sodomite/pro-dyke agenda to push. The studies conclusively show that children do best when raised in a household with BOTH a mother and a father. Not a father and his sodomite queen, nor a mother and her dyke lover. NO credible studies say the gender is immaterial.

Interesting that you would call me a liar and yet not provide any evidence to the contrary. Funny that.

Well, I do have evidence to support my claim.

“Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents,” said USC College sociologist Timothy Biblarz, the study’s lead author.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of New York University analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents.

“That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical,” Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the “partial exception of lactation,” noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children’s psychological adjustment and social success.[...]

“The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents.​

Do Children Need a Mother and Father?

Wonder if your "study" is one of those non-scientific, pro-deviant, bs fests.
•The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents."
•Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.The New Family Structures Study--Restoring the "Gold Standard"

This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
•Have lower educational attainment
•Report less safety and security in their family of origin
•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
•Are more likely to suffer from depression
•Have been arrested more often
•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
•Use marijuana more frequently
•Smoke more frequently
•Watch TV for long periods more frequently
•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense


Seems they're more likely to be molested by the sexual deviants that raise them also;
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), a ffirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).


http://http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research



Entire study found here;
http://http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

http://http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610



You cannot expect even the average sexual deviants to be as good at parenting as the average mother and father for the simple fact that sexual deviants START off with the mental and moral deficiencies associated with being sexual perverts in the first place.

 

[jtpr312]

Clearly you just liiiiieeed your ass off, bubba. The studies you cited were either debunked as utter trash or they compared single parent homes to two parent homes, and were therefore worthless in attempting to compare same sex parent families and opposite sex parent homes. Not only was each study worth squat…but EVERY study you used was worth squat. Next???



Nah, of course you’re a liar with a pro-ignorant-bigot/pro-irrational homophobe agenda to push. The studies you cited were trash, garbage, rubbish, refuse, compost, junk, debris, codswallop, litter, waste, tosh, bosh, and drivel.

Either you are an extremely unobservant and dull-wittedly unperceptive bigot-boy by not noticing that two of your “references” you cited were dealing with immaterial “single’parent” homes, or you did notice but included them anyway, meaning you were being deceitful. Tsk tsk, you little immoral imp, you.

I’m waiting for you to cite credible and relevant studies to back up your camel caca.

You haven’t yet.

Read the thread nancy, already provided what you seek for another immoral sexual deviant here, no need to repeat myself. I feel dirty just corresponding with you filthy perverts.

 

[JoeB131]

[



The studies show that children do best when raised by both a mother and a father. Common sense says the same. As for studies on kids raised by same sex couples, there's a group of these people, grown now, who are speaking about their problems growing up in such deviant households.
/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research"]http://http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research[/URL]

The Family Research Council is a hate group. It's declarations on this subject are about as useful as a declaration by the Klan that mixed marriages are bad.

Where are the SCIENTIFIC Studies. The American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have found that kids raised by gay parents do just fine.

 

[PJC]

Read the thread nancy,

Now now, bubba; don't git yer panties in a pinch and blow a vein or sumpin' yuk yuk yuk.

already provided what you seek

and again, regnerus' bs was debunked. Here it is again, seeyun's how you conveniently ignored it last time:

What’s particularly notable about this brief is the time it takes to unpack everything that was flawed about Mark Regnerus’s study that claimed that children who had parents in same-sex relationships fared worse. The study has been called “bullshit” by an internal audit of the journal that originally published it, and even Regnerus has admitted that he really didn’t capture any valid information about gay fathers or lesbian mothers. Nevertheless, conservatives repeatedly cite it as evidence against same-sex parenting, including in the arguments for DOMA and Prop 8. In brief, here was how ASA debunked the study:
Regnerus did not study children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, only those who seem to recollect one of their parents ever having a same-sex relationship.
Regnerus compared that group, most of which had experienced family dissolution, only to stable, married, opposite-sex families — i.e. he compared unstable to intact.
Regnerus ignored whether the children lived with or were raised by the parents who had a same-sex relationship.
Regnerus only identified these “gay” parents based on the recollection of the children, not based on how the parents actually identify or live their lives.
Most of the factors Regnerus analyzes were adult outcomes, not childhood outcomes, and could very well have had nothing to do with the relationships of the children’s parents.
In a footnote, the ASA also mentioned how researcher Douglas Allen distorted data from another study in a similar way to result in a false comparison between unstable and stable households.”

for another immoral sexual deviant here,

And i posted the above for you and the other immoral social deviants here. Like how that works, partner? (chuckle ho ho)

no need to repeat myself. I feel dirty just corresponding with you filthy perverts.

You are indeed dirty and filthy, my socially perverted friend.

Your irrational hatred of those who've done you no ill demonstrates your immoral corruption and ignorant prejudice.

And i'm just wonderin' here.

If you feel dirty just corresponding with certain people, why do you continue to do it?

Perchance that you like feeling dirty and filthy? Or perhaps you get a cheap sexual thrill out of gay bashing from the safety and anonymity of your basement?

You can degrade and demean others whom you've never met, calling them dirty, filthy, perverts, deviants, etc; and maybe this makes you feel just a wee bit better about your own failings in life? It helps take your mind off of what a loser you feel yourself to be, eh?

Yeah, most racists, misogynists, homophobes, and other like-minded prejudiced bigots such as yourself, from what i've seen, engage in that sport for the same reasons.

guys such as yourself, Westboro baptist church asswipes, islamists, racists, jew haters, etc; you're all the same; only the targets of your hatred differ.

Ya'll seem to always go to great lengths to justify your hatred of those you hate. Study upon study was done to justify hatred of blacks, hatred of jews, islamist hatred of the west....

You guys are simply ignorantly evil and immorally decrepit dregs of society.

Gays have done nothing to earn your animosity, why then do you hate them, my buffoonish bruh?

If you do not like gays, why do you spend so much time talking to them?

Why your obsession?

 

[Seawytch]

jtpr, you can't take a study that compares intact families with single parent families and call that proof of anything. Every major medical, pediatric and psychological association have made statements in support of gay parents raising children and of marriage equality for those families. All studies of gay parents and their children show that they are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

I'll stack my kids against yours any day of the week.

 

[P@triot]

jtpr, you can't take a study that compares intact families with single parent families and call that proof of anything. Every major medical, pediatric and psychological association have made statements in support of gay parents raising children and of marriage equality for those families. All studies of gay parents and their children show that they are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

I'll stack my kids against yours any day of the week.

First, the fact that you refer to your children as "kids" tells me all I need to know about what type of parent you are and what type of children you have. And if you "stacked" your children up against mine - you'd lose (badly).

Second, spare me your "association" stats bullshit. Left-wing "scientists" who have been scremaing "the sky is falling" like Chicken Little have now been caught in TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" discussing how they are falsifying data and lying about the problem.

One thing that has been unquivocally proven through out history - the left is the side of propaganda and lies. They believe "the ends justify the means" and as such, they will warp any data to support their ideology, instead of dating the results of the data to decide their ideology.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question posed by a 14-year old girl who proved she has more understanding of this issue that you ever will:

WHICH PARENT DOES SHE NOT NEED - HER MOTHER OR HER FATHER?

The fact that you can't answer this very simple, very straight forward question says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

jtpr, you can't take a study that compares intact families with single parent families and call that proof of anything. Every major medical, pediatric and psychological association have made statements in support of gay parents raising children and of marriage equality for those families. All studies of gay parents and their children show that they are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

I'll stack my kids against yours any day of the week.

First, the fact that you refer to your children as "kids" tells me all I need to know about what type of parent you are and what type of children you have. And if you "stacked" your children up against mine - you'd lose (badly).

Really? What does it tell you? Your reaction to my saying "kids" (which, according to the dictionary means "child or young person") tells me you are a homophobe's homophobe that can find even the way a "ghey" says "kids" icky.

No, I wouldn't lose badly. I've got great kids (child or young person) and I'm very proud of them. That probably makes you feel all icky...gay parental pride. Run for the hills! Funny homophobe is funny.

Second, spare me your "association" stats bullshit. Left-wing "scientists" who have been scremaing "the sky is falling" like Chicken Little have now been caught in TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" discussing how they are falsifying data and lying about the problem.

Non sequitur much? Studies in peer reviewed journals and opinions of major medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association are not "stats bullshit". (And while climate science has nothing to do with this subject, the overwhelming majority of scientists will tell you our climate is changing and we are a huge contributing factor in it, but science is probably all French and gay to you).

One thing that has been unquivocally proven through out history - the left is the side of propaganda and lies. They believe "the ends justify the means" and as such, they will warp any data to support their ideology, instead of dating the results of the data to decide their ideology.

Yes you do non sequitur much. I answered my own question.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question posed by a 14-year old girl who proved she has more understanding of this issue that you ever will:

WHICH PARENT DOES SHE NOT NEED - HER MOTHER OR HER FATHER?

The fact that you can't answer this very simple, very straight forward question says it all, doesn't it?

Your ridiculous red herring question was already answered. No one is taking away either of her parents. Why would you want to take away one of our kid's (child or young person) parents? Oh, because you're a raging bigot, that's why. Answered my own question again.

 

[P@triot]

Really? What does it tell you? Your reaction to my saying "kids" (which, according to the dictionary means "child or young person") tells me you are a homophobe's homophobe that can find even the way a "ghey" says "kids" icky.

A "kid" is a baby goat (is that how you look at your children?). It is also most used as a derogatory term for other children when they don't know each other's name but are angry ("hey kid"!).

No, I wouldn't lose badly. I've got great kids (child or young person) and I'm very proud of them. That probably makes you feel all icky...gay parental pride. Run for the hills! Funny homophobe is funny.

I'm not a homophobe - I could give a flying fuck who you have sex with. Just like you idiots need to faslely accuse conservatives of "racism" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate, you people also feel the need to scream "homophobe" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate about gay anything.

Your ridiculous red herring question was already answered. No one is taking away either of her parents. Why would you want to take away one of our kid's (child or young person) parents? Oh, because you're a raging bigot, that's why. Answered my own question again.

I'm sorry, but nobody could be this stupid. This has to be an act by you to avoid answering the question since you know you are wrong.

She's not claiming anyone is "talking" a parent away. She's simply asking which parent does she not need (mother or father) which can be replaced by the same sex of the remaining parent. But you know you can't answer this question - so you run from it and try to turn it into something it's not. You're literally getting your ass handed to you by a 14 year old .

 

[Seawytch]

Really? What does it tell you? Your reaction to my saying "kids" (which, according to the dictionary means "child or young person") tells me you are a homophobe's homophobe that can find even the way a "ghey" says "kids" icky.

A "kid" is a baby goat (is that how you look at your children?). It is also most used as a derogatory term for other children when they don't know each other's name but are angry ("hey kid"!).

Apparently it is a regional vernacular thing. Out here on the best coast, we say "kids" all the time. "Honey, are you going to pick up the kids today or shall I?" Have you ever seen a dictionary? They have them online now.

Dictionary Definition of "Kid"

1. (as in first one on their list of definitions) Informal. a child or young person.

No, I wouldn't lose badly. I've got great kids (child or young person) and I'm very proud of them. That probably makes you feel all icky...gay parental pride. Run for the hills! Funny homophobe is funny.

I'm not a homophobe - I could give a flying fuck who you have sex with. Just like you idiots need to faslely accuse conservatives of "racism" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate, you people also feel the need to scream "homophobe" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate about gay anything.

Um, the simple fact that you think being gay is just about who we have sex with makes you a homophobe. That you don't want gays to have equal rights as you do also makes you a homophobe.

Your ridiculous red herring question was already answered. No one is taking away either of her parents. Why would you want to take away one of our kid's (child or young person) parents? Oh, because you're a raging bigot, that's why. Answered my own question again.

]I'm sorry, but nobody could be this stupid. This has to be an act by you to avoid answering the question since you know you are wrong.

She's not claiming anyone is "talking" a parent away. She's simply asking which parent does she not need (mother or father) which can be replaced by the same sex of the remaining parent. But you know you can't answer this question - so you run from it and try to turn it into something it's not. You're literally getting your ass handed to you by a 14 year old

My children have two parents of the same sex that they know and love as their parents. We are the only parents they have ever or will ever know. Which of them don't they need?

A child needs both their parents...but the gender of the parents is immaterial...as has been pointed out already with facts to back it up. What your 14 year old logic is advocating for is an end to divorce. Good luck.

 

[PJC]

jtpr, you can't take a study that compares intact families with single parent families and call that proof of anything. Every major medical, pediatric and psychological association have made statements in support of gay parents raising children and of marriage equality for those families. All studies of gay parents and their children show that they are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

I'll stack my kids against yours any day of the week.

First, the fact that you refer to your children as "kids" tells me all I need to know about what type of parent you are and what type of children you have. And if you "stacked" your children up against mine - you'd lose (badly).

Second, spare me your "association" stats bullshit. Left-wing "scientists" who have been scremaing "the sky is falling" like Chicken Little have now been caught in TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" discussing how they are falsifying data and lying about the problem.

One thing that has been unquivocally proven through out history - the left is the side of propaganda and lies. They believe "the ends justify the means" and as such, they will warp any data to support their ideology, instead of dating the results of the data to decide their ideology.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question posed by a 14-year old girl who proved she has more understanding of this issue that you ever will:

WHICH PARENT DOES SHE NOT NEED - HER MOTHER OR HER FATHER?

The fact that you can't answer this very simple, very straight forward question says it all, doesn't it?

The 14 year old kid was using a fallacy by asking a loaded question. It'd be like me asking somebody "When did you stop beating your wife?" The typical loaded question (like that kid's question) starts off with an assumption as part of the question.

Because you think that this kid's fallacy is a legimitate and logical question shows your irrationality.

And your assumption that someone who uses the term kid makes them a bad parent is not supported by any facts. I know a great many very outstanding parents who use the same term.

Bottom line, your premises are faulty and worthless.

 

[PJC]

Really? What does it tell you? Your reaction to my saying "kids" (which, according to the dictionary means "child or young person") tells me you are a homophobe's homophobe that can find even the way a "ghey" says "kids" icky.

A "kid" is a baby goat (is that how you look at your children?). It is also most used as a derogatory term for other children when they don't know each other's name but are angry ("hey kid"!).
Merriam-Webster dictionary also defines kid as a young person; &#8220;especially : child &#8212;often used as a generalized reference to one especially younger or less experienced <the kid on the pro golf tour.&#8221;

You are clearly wrong in your attempt to correct Seawytch and dishonestly portray her as a bad parent for using the term. Your argument lies with Merriam and Webster.

No, I wouldn't lose badly. I've got great kids (child or young person) and I'm very proud of them. That probably makes you feel all icky...gay parental pride. Run for the hills! Funny homophobe is funny.

I'm not a homophobe - I could give a flying fuck who you have sex with. Just like you idiots need to faslely accuse conservatives of "racism" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate, you people also feel the need to scream "homophobe" when you're getting your asses handed to you in a debate about gay anything.
Let&#8217;s see; irrational anger, use of lazy-brained insults to attack gays, stooping to dishonesty to make a gay person appear to be a bad parent, dimwitted gradeschool retorts which make you sound like you&#8217;re 8 years old.. .....Survey saaaaays&#8230;.yep, yer a highly typical homophobic bigot. Sorry.

Your ridiculous red herring question was already answered. No one is taking away either of her parents. Why would you want to take away one of our kid's (child or young person) parents? Oh, because you're a raging bigot, that's why. Answered my own question again.

I'm sorry, but nobody could be this stupid. This has to be an act by you to avoid answering the question since you know you are wrong.
Her post sounds in no way &#8220;stupid&#8221;; it was quite lucid and rational; you however, responded with a &#8220;yer just &#8230;stooopid&#8221; making you again sound as if you&#8217;re in grade school. She was not avoiding answering the question. The question was a fallacy and loaded hence it cannot be answered succinctly without appearing as if one is avoiding answering. That is how loaded questions are designed and why they work so well; also this is why they are fallacious because they automatically attach an assumption to the question being asked.

Try logic, and the 14 year old kid is probably not logical and rational enough to understand that her question was an error in reasoning, you, presumably being an adult, should not have been so naïve to fall for it.

She's not claiming anyone is "talking" a parent away. She's simply asking which parent does she not need (mother or father) which can be replaced by the same sex of the remaining parent. But you know you can't answer this question - so you run from it and try to turn it into something it's not. You're literally getting your ass handed to you by a 14 year old .

Again, no; she did not run from it. It was a loaded question and therefore fallaciously nonsensical and illogical.

As for your claim she&#8217;s &#8220;literally&#8221; getting her ass handed to her; that is also patently ridiculous and makes you look rather inane and foolish. Look up what the word &#8220;literally&#8221; means, then get back with us.

Jeez, you homophobic bigots are so silly and slow-witted.

 

[PJC]

[
So here we have one more lazy scrote that want's someone else to do their homework for them. Sheesh, you freaking people are morons.
http://New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
http://Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families ...
http://How does being raised by a single parent affect children
Several large-scale studies have shown that children of single-parent households fare worse in life on most measurements (happiness, achievement, self-image ...
Educate yourself dumbass. Start with reading the studies there site reference, when you're done drop me a line.

None of your links actually go anywhere...
And again, your studies as you describe them are about SINGLE parent households, NOT households with two parents of the same gender.
Do you have any studies on THAT subject?

The studies show that children do best when raised by both a mother and a father.

Again, the studies were worthless for trying to compare same sex couples with opposite sex couples. You can whine and bitch about it all day long ignoring the facts, it ain’t gonna change it, knuckle-dragger.

Common sense says the same.

Actually no it doesn’t. Common sense, combined with the actual facts, show that your assessment is in error and that the studies are worth diddly in trying to prove your assertion. You really need to look up what constitutes common sense, ‘cause you ain’t got a lick of it son.

As for studies on kids raised by same sex couples, there's a group of these people, grown now, who are speaking about their problems growing up in such deviant households.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless when trying to prove your point. Sorry. Try logic and fact, bubba.

an important article published in >>>snip<<<http://http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

As for all your twaddle and mindless claptrap from the FRC; it’s worth squat. FRC is a hate group targeting gays; their credibility has been shot full of holes repeatedly.

As for Loren Marks:
“Loren Marks is a NOM/Robert George collaborator. In a Proposition 8-related case in California, the anti-gay-rights side intended to use Marks as an expert witness, but under questioning Marks admitted that he had not read studies from which he was quoting, and that he did not know anything about same sex parenting.”
SOURCE:
>>>thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/open-letter-to-university-of-texas-regarding-professor-mark-regneruss-alleged-unethical-anti-gay-study/civil-rights/2012/06/24/41977<<<

Jeez…..Don’t ya’ll fellas have anything that’s logical or factual???? Yuk yuk yuk

Educate yourself my befuddled little friend.

 

[P@triot]

Apparently it is a regional vernacular thing. Out here on the best coast, we say "kids" all the time. "Honey, are you going to pick up the kids today or shall I?" Have you ever seen a dictionary? They have them online now.

They do have dictionaries online now - apparently you are not capable of reading since you know they exist. Here, allow me to help you. Perhaps your ("life partner"?) can read it to you? If not, ask a neighbor:

kid (kd)
n.
1.
a. A young goat.
b. The young of a similar animal, such as an antelope.
2.
a. The flesh of a young goat.
b. Leather made from the skin of a young goat; kidskin.
c. An article made from this leather.

Kid - definition of Kid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Um, the simple fact that you think being gay is just about who we have sex with makes you a homophobe.

Being gay is not about who you have sex with?!?!

That you don't want gays to have equal rights as you do also makes you a homophobe

Um, hey you ignorant bulldyke, perhaps you should learn what RIGHTS are before you claim anyone else is trying to take them from you

I 100% support your right to free speech

I 100% support your right to freedom of religion

I 100% support your right to bear arms

I 100% support your right to not indict yourself

So tell me, which "right" of yours do I not support? Face it - you've been thoroughly owned by a 14-year old girl. When a liberal gets owned in a debate, they automatically scream "racist", "homophobe", etc. It's like some strange defense mechanism.

My children have two parents of the same sex that they know and love as their parents. We are the only parents they have ever or will ever know. Which of them don't they need?

Pick one.... pick a number.... draw from a hat. They definitely don't need one of you.

A child needs both their parents...but the gender of the parents is immaterial...

Why does a child need "both" parents if the gender of each parent is the same? One of the parents is not bringing anything different to the table than the other one...

Your 4 year old "logic" simply doesn't hold up. You're just pissed off at the world that you were born gay. Sorry, that's not our fault. Deal with it.

 

[P@triot]

It was a loaded question and therefore fallaciously nonsensical and illogical.

"Loaded question" is what the idiot liberal dumbocrat yells when they've been pinned into a corner with facts. Thank you for proving that a 14-year old girl is brighter than you high school drop-out hippie liberals.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

Redefining anything doesn't create a distance between mothers, fathers and their children. If marriage was suddenly called Apple Pie do you think dads would wake up one day and think "Fuck these kids, why am I here?" Just plain stupid

 

[P@triot]

Bottom line, your premises are faulty and worthless.

Bottom line, like most liberals, you are faulty and worthless. Hence the reason you need to ingest narcotics and live as a hippie. Enough said....

 

[mal]

jtpr, you can't take a study that compares intact families with single parent families and call that proof of anything. Every major medical, pediatric and psychological association have made statements in support of gay parents raising children and of marriage equality for those families. All studies of gay parents and their children show that they are at no disadvantage to those raised by heterosexuals.

I'll stack my kids against yours any day of the week.

Two Woman will NEVER Equal the Father the Child is being Denied.

Two Men will NEVER Equal the Mother the Child is being Denied.

Fact not Fiction.

No matter how Butchy a Woman might be or Prissy a Man might be.

It's still an Act and in either case a Father or a Mother is Missing.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Apparently it is a regional vernacular thing. Out here on the best coast, we say "kids" all the time. "Honey, are you going to pick up the kids today or shall I?" Have you ever seen a dictionary? They have them online now.

They do have dictionaries online now - apparently you are not capable of reading since you know they exist. Here, allow me to help you. Perhaps your ("life partner"?) can read it to you? If not, ask a neighbor:

kid (kd)
n.
1.
a. A young goat.
b. The young of a similar animal, such as an antelope.
2.
a. The flesh of a young goat.
b. Leather made from the skin of a young goat; kidskin.
c. An article made from this leather.

Kid - definition of Kid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What was the first and primary definition? Oh yeah, "child or young person".

Again, this seems a vernacular difference that you want to make a condemnation of my parenting. Your insistence on doing so makes you look the fool.

Um, the simple fact that you think being gay is just about who we have sex with makes you a homophobe.

Being gay is not about who you have sex with?!?!

Um, hey you ignorant bulldyke, perhaps you should learn what RIGHTS are before you claim anyone else is trying to take them from you

I 100% support your right to free speech

I 100% support your right to freedom of religion

I 100% support your right to bear arms

I 100% support your right to not indict yourself

So tell me, which "right" of yours do I not support?

The fundamental right, as defined by the SCOTUS, to marry the non familial, consenting adult of my choice.

You also sound like you'd like to stop us from having children, although I don't know how you'd stop us.

Face it - you've been thoroughly owned by a 14-year old girl. When a liberal gets owned in a debate, they automatically scream "racist", "homophobe", etc. It's like some strange defense mechanism.

While I'm sure her comments were sincere, no one is attempting to take away one of her parents and her "argument"/testimony has no bearing on legal marriage. A greater point she probably doesn't know she made, is that parents who love you is a good thing. Just as you couldn't choose between your mom and your dad, some other kid wouldn't be able to choose between his mom and his other mom. it's not about their gender--it's because both parents love you so unconditionally and provide you with different gifts, traditions, etc.

My children have two parents of the same sex that they know and love as their parents. We are the only parents they have ever or will ever know. Which of them don't they need?

Pick one.... pick a number.... draw from a hat. They definitely don't need one of you.

Ask THEM that question.

A child needs both their parents...but the gender of the parents is immaterial...

Why does a child need "both" parents if the gender of each parent is the same? One of the parents is not bringing anything different to the table than the other one...

Your 4 year old "logic" simply doesn't hold up. You're just pissed off at the world that you were born gay. Sorry, that's not our fault. Deal with it.

Actual studies have proved your opinion wrong.