Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

[JBond]

From the article linked in the OP...

"The White House has said a 2014 Obama administration order that created new workplace protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people would be kept"

Not sure about the rest of the weirdness in the op.

 

[P@triot]

Do kids in poor families do as well as those in well off families? Do kids in inner city and high crime areas do as well as suburban kinds ?Maybe yes but probably no, but the point is that no one is looking at those issues for the purpose of saying " well, maybe we should not encourage poor ,urban people to have kid, and maybe even create some obstacles.

Well lets start with the obvious here - homosexuals have a built in obstacle. It is literally impossible for them to have children naturally together. Many would say that is just nature taking care of business.

That aside - I can't speak for anyone else - but I absolutely do encourage poor people not to have children. I think it is an outrage that people who cannot afford children have them and then expect society to pay for them.

However, I do understand your point here and I think there is some validity to it. It does seem like the only demographic discouraged are homosexuals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do kids in poor families do as well as those in well off families? Do kids in inner city and high crime areas do as well as suburban kinds ?Maybe yes but probably no, but the point is that no one is looking at those issues for the purpose of saying " well, maybe we should not encourage poor ,urban people to have kid, and maybe even create some obstacles.

Well lets start with the obvious here - homosexuals have a built in obstacle. It is literally impossible for them to have children naturally together. Many would say that is just nature taking care of business.

That aside - I can't speak for anyone else - but I absolutely do encourage poor people not to have children. I think it is an outrage that people who cannot afford children have them and then expect society to pay for them.

However, I do understand your point here and I think there is some validity to it. It does seem like the only demographic discouraged are homosexuals.

A built in obstacle? Really? So what? A lot of heterosexuals can't have children naturally either. Are we telling them that because of that they can't be good parents? Are we discouraging them from trying to have kids? That is clearly a desperate reach if I ever saw one. Just more of your thinly veiled bigotry.

Discouraging poor people ? Good for you! There are a lot of people who should not have kids for a variety of reasons. But does that give you or anyone the right to erect barriers to their having children if they so choose? The only time it would be appropriate to do so would be in the case of adoption - where it can be demonstrated that parenting would be ill advised. However, on the issue of adoption by gays, many states were way out ahead on that and were allowing gays to adopt long before gay marriage was a serious issue. Again, no credible evidence that its harmful

Thank you for acknowledging my point.

 

[P@triot]

A built in obstacle? Really? So what? A lot of heterosexuals can't have children naturally either. Are we telling them that because of that they can't be good parents? Are we discouraging them from trying to have kids?

I said that I see your point and that there was some validity to it. The difference however is that homosexuals have an obstacle by nature, while heterosexuals who can't conceive have an obstacle due to a medical anomaly. Most heterosexuals can conceive - those that can't have some unusual medical anomaly. Literally 0 homosexuals can conceive naturally with each other.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A built in obstacle? Really? So what? A lot of heterosexuals can't have children naturally either. Are we telling them that because of that they can't be good parents? Are we discouraging them from trying to have kids?

I said that I see your point and that there was some validity to it. The difference however is that homosexuals have an obstacle by nature, while heterosexuals who can't conceive have an obstacle due to a medical anomaly. Most heterosexuals can conceive - those that can't have some unusual medical anomaly. Literally 0 homosexuals can conceive naturally with each other.

Again so what? You're just blathering again. What is your point with all of that? Why does the reason for not being able conceive "naturally with each other" even matter? You are not thinking clearly. Just taking shots in the dark in a desperate and failing attempt to sound clever. The ability to conceive "naturally with each other" has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights or their ability to be parents. Procreation as a reason to deny rights has been shot down in the courts numerous times and I have to continue to stress that discrimination against gays only results in harm to the children that they will inevitably have in their care one way or another. PLEASE THINK!

PS Interesting too how you ignore most of what I post indicating that you can't actually deal with it. Have you reviewed #116 as I suggested?

 

[elektra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Gay marriage ruling moves Michigan forward

Account Suspended

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06...e-is-marriage/

Okay you big dummy, I understand you call others stupid, because that is what you are, you replied to my post where I clearly stated nobody ever posts "studies", by linking to NEWSPAPER articles which are not studies! Thank you for proving my point. This is your evidence, a NEWSPAPER article!

2 broken links! 3 newspaper articles! And the dumbass stupid imbecile. "TheProgressivePatriot", states that he/she has provided EVIDENCE! And proved me wrong? When I say nobody will post a study!

TheProgressivePatriot, your broken links, your newpaper articles, are not studies and are not evidence. You posted evidence, no fool, you proved yourself an imbecile, hell, you can not even link your own comments! You refer to your post as #116? Not as, Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

MORON!

and the idiot, fails to respond, when it is pointed out that "theprogressivepatriot", has lied, stating "newspaper article" are "evidence".

very nice, indeed, theprogressivepatriot can only produce a newspaper article, and at that can not offer any commentary how the article is relevant to the discussion?

 

[elektra]

And yes, rhetoric can lead to violence. It is the first step on what I call the continuum of intolerance. The Nazi's understand that well.

Your rhetoric can lead to violence, that is good to know

 

[elektra]

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
   "proof of ownership"

The link you provided is not facts or evidence, if you think there is relevance to the discussion, you should quote and add your thoughts. We are not playing cards with google, providing a link does not mean or show you proved the point you are making.

So go ahead, make a point, from your link, it is super lazy simply to post a link and then rant and rave, paraphrasing what I said, poorly.

If that the only way you can "win", you are a loser.

The link I provided gave you the proof you demanded. You're deflecting from it because it destroys your bigoted argument.

I did not demand proof or evidence, I simply told you to post your study you claimed made a point, you gave a link, you did not quote, you did not make a comment, and one stupid link is not evidence and is hardly making any sort of point. Are you really that dumb, that you think you can post a link, and that is it.

You have not commented one bit on your link.

First and foremost, and I will quote and link using your link, tomorrow or the next day, but for now, lets just say this, your study says, or the people who made the study admit that the study is very limited because it only "studied", 3 year old children.

Now you have made a claim that kids are fine, as in teenagers, not toddlers, that kids are fine, and to make that statement, or to establish that as fact, instead of actually talking to adults that were forced into homosexual lifestyles, your study talked to the teachers of 3 year old toddlers?

Your entire claim that kids grow up fine when forced against there will into homosexual lifestyles is based upon what the teachers of 3 year old children think?

But hey, I will quote the study, the part called conclusion, and I will link your study.

I have gave you my commentary on your study, something you have not had the time to, seeings how you were busy insulting, flaming, and trolling. So I will continue to do what you do not, I will quote and link your lousy study, and show how the authors of the study have admitted it is flawed because it does not study grown up kids, just three year olds!

Did you read the study, you made the claim that kids grow up fine in homosexual lifestyles and as evidence you offered a study not of grown up children?

again, you should of commented on your own link, quoted and commented, I see why you did not, because you were too stupid to read what you posted, or if you did read it, you were too stupid to comprehend that the study was about toddlers, not grown up kids, you know, kids, as in teenagers, who claim the study confirmed as fine.

I gave you plenty of chances to actually read the study, so I would not have to make you look like a fool, intellectually, but you never get it, you can not support your stupid ass ideas that roll around in your empty head with studies you obviously never read.

Our kids are fine, bigot. Kids of divorce need your "concern" a lot more.

prove it

 

[elektra]

This may sting a little. It's from a reputable source.
Adopted children thrive in same-sex households, study shows

Yes, it will sting, I hope your sitting on your ass.

First, it is in organization, that hardly makes it reputable. Second, it is not a study, just an opinion by an organization that tells us what to think of a study that is not linked in the article?

That is how the seawitch rolls, relying on second hand editorials that tell their opinion of a study.

 

[elektra]

Are you lazy or do you just like to be spoon fed?
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Lazy would be linking and not commenting, as you have done. How is your "study" relevant? I can answer, it is not.

Here is your comment you think you have confirmed as fact with the above link to a study:
Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

Our kids are fine, bigot. Kids of divorce need your "concern" a lot more

Here is your link and your study
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Associations were studied among self-reported divisions
of labor, coparenting observations, and child adjustment (Mage=3 years)

First off, you can not call questionnaires sent out as scientific fact. It is "self-reporting".
Second, would a person that has a behavioral problem "self-report" the problems their children are having? Especially if that person receives government welfare and benefits?
Third, the "study", is of toddlers, how can one say that kids of Homosexuals have grown up fine while only "studying", 3 YEAR OLDS!

The people who made the study admit this is a severe limitation of their work!!!!!

Some limitations of the study should be noted. At the time of data collection, children were young (M=3 years) and thus this study was not likely to have captured complex dynamics of parenting and child development that emerge as children grow older.

seawitch claims "kids of homosexuals are fine", based on a study. A study that says it does not "capture" the complex dynamics of parenting and child development.

seawitch did not read the study, did not offer quotes from the study, nor commented on the study, seawitch just offers a random google search as "evidence", when the authors of the study do not state this is evidence. The authors are actually fairly honest, reporting the severe limitations of their work, whereas seawitch is an absolute liar about the study.

 

[elektra]

A study that uses "self-reporting" is useless, invalid.

 

[Seawytch]

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
   "proof of ownership"

The link you provided is not facts or evidence, if you think there is relevance to the discussion, you should quote and add your thoughts. We are not playing cards with google, providing a link does not mean or show you proved the point you are making.

So go ahead, make a point, from your link, it is super lazy simply to post a link and then rant and rave, paraphrasing what I said, poorly.

If that the only way you can "win", you are a loser.

The link I provided gave you the proof you demanded. You're deflecting from it because it destroys your bigoted argument.

I did not demand proof or evidence, I simply told you to post your study you claimed made a point, you gave a link, you did not quote, you did not make a comment, and one stupid link is not evidence and is hardly making any sort of point. Are you really that dumb, that you think you can post a link, and that is it.

You have not commented one bit on your link.

First and foremost, and I will quote and link using your link, tomorrow or the next day, but for now, lets just say this, your study says, or the people who made the study admit that the study is very limited because it only "studied", 3 year old children.

Now you have made a claim that kids are fine, as in teenagers, not toddlers, that kids are fine, and to make that statement, or to establish that as fact, instead of actually talking to adults that were forced into homosexual lifestyles, your study talked to the teachers of 3 year old toddlers?

Your entire claim that kids grow up fine when forced against there will into homosexual lifestyles is based upon what the teachers of 3 year old children think?

But hey, I will quote the study, the part called conclusion, and I will link your study.

I have gave you my commentary on your study, something you have not had the time to, seeings how you were busy insulting, flaming, and trolling. So I will continue to do what you do not, I will quote and link your lousy study, and show how the authors of the study have admitted it is flawed because it does not study grown up kids, just three year olds!

Did you read the study, you made the claim that kids grow up fine in homosexual lifestyles and as evidence you offered a study not of grown up children?

again, you should of commented on your own link, quoted and commented, I see why you did not, because you were too stupid to read what you posted, or if you did read it, you were too stupid to comprehend that the study was about toddlers, not grown up kids, you know, kids, as in teenagers, who claim the study confirmed as fine.

I gave you plenty of chances to actually read the study, so I would not have to make you look like a fool, intellectually, but you never get it, you can not support your stupid ass ideas that roll around in your empty head with studies you obviously never read.

Our kids are fine, bigot. Kids of divorce need your "concern" a lot more.

prove it

Already did.

 

[elektra]

Already did.

No you did not, read this, read you study, from you link, and tell us how

Are you lazy or do you just like to be spoon fed?
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Lazy would be linking and not commenting, as you have done. How is your "study" relevant? I can answer, it is not.

Here is your comment you think you have confirmed as fact with your link to a study:
Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

Our kids are fine, bigot. Kids of divorce need your "concern" a lot more

Here is your link and your study
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Associations were studied among self-reported divisions
of labor, coparenting observations, and child adjustment (Mage=3 years)

First off, you can not call questionnaires sent out as scientific fact. It is "self-reporting".
Second, would a person that has a behavioral problem "self-report" the problems their children are having? Especially if that person receives government welfare and benefits?
Third, the "study", is of toddlers, how can one say that kids of Homosexuals have grown up fine while only "studying", 3 YEAR OLDS!

The people who made the study admit this is a severe limitation of their work!!!!!

Some limitations of the study should be noted. At the time of data collection, children were young (M=3 years) and thus this study was not likely to have captured complex dynamics of parenting and child development that emerge as children grow older.

seawitch claims "kids of homosexuals are fine", based on a study. A study that says it does not "capture" the complex dynamics of parenting and child development.

seawitch did not read the study, did not offer quotes from the study, nor commented on the study, seawitch just offers a random google search as "evidence", when the authors of the study do not state this is evidence. The authors are actually fairly honest, reporting the severe limitations of their work, whereas seawitch is an absolute liar about the study.

 

[Seawytch]

Already did.

No you did not, read this, read you study, from you link, and tell us how

Are you lazy or do you just like to be spoon fed?
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Lazy would be linking and not commenting, as you have done. How is your "study" relevant? I can answer, it is not.

Here is your comment you think you have confirmed as fact with your link to a study:
Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

Our kids are fine, bigot. Kids of divorce need your "concern" a lot more

Here is your link and your study
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp13b.pdf

Associations were studied among self-reported divisions
of labor, coparenting observations, and child adjustment (Mage=3 years)

First off, you can not call questionnaires sent out as scientific fact. It is "self-reporting".
Second, would a person that has a behavioral problem "self-report" the problems their children are having? Especially if that person receives government welfare and benefits?
Third, the "study", is of toddlers, how can one say that kids of Homosexuals have grown up fine while only "studying", 3 YEAR OLDS!

The people who made the study admit this is a severe limitation of their work!!!!!

Some limitations of the study should be noted. At the time of data collection, children were young (M=3 years) and thus this study was not likely to have captured complex dynamics of parenting and child development that emerge as children grow older.

seawitch claims "kids of homosexuals are fine", based on a study. A study that says it does not "capture" the complex dynamics of parenting and child development.

seawitch did not read the study, did not offer quotes from the study, nor commented on the study, seawitch just offers a random google search as "evidence", when the authors of the study do not state this is evidence. The authors are actually fairly honest, reporting the severe limitations of their work, whereas seawitch is an absolute liar about the study.

It's very simple...The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage

But we know it doesn't matter how much information you are provided it doesn't square with your worldview so you will ignore it.

Our kids are fine, kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

 

[elektra]

It's very simple...The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage

But we know it doesn't matter how much information you are provided it doesn't square with your worldview so you will ignore it.

Our kids are fine, kids of divorce are fucked up. Worry about them.

I quoted you last link, which you now realize did not make your point, it made the opposite point, that I am right, and in this post I quote, your link does not work.

You do not give information, you give broken links and make declarations.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why not heterosexual predators too?

Well Trump's probably not going to adopt anybody, but he probably wants to keep his option open

 

[P@triot]

Why does the reason for not being able conceive "naturally with each other" even matter?

Because nature is dictating that they will not be parents. It's evolution. It's Darwin. I thought you progressives were all about education and science. Funny how you ignore all of that the moment your feelings pop up.

That's the problem with progressivism and why it is such a monumental failure. It is built entirely on feelings. It ignores all logic and reason in favor of they feel.

 

[P@triot]

The ability to conceive "naturally with each other" has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights or their ability to be parents.

There is no such thing as "gay rings" chief. There are only rights. And homosexuals have enjoyed them since the beginning of the United States. A homosexual has never been denied the right to carry a firearm. A homosexual has never been denied the right to vote. A homosexual has never been denied the right to practice their religion. Your false narrative is idiotic and a waste of time. If you can't have an honest conversation - don't bother having one at all.

 

[P@triot]

Interesting too how you ignore most of what I post indicating that you can't actually deal with it. Have you reviewed #116 as I suggested?

I haven't ignored anything my fragile little snowflake. Most of what you posted (such as your raging hard on for post #116) is nonsense and I've obliterated with facts.

On the few items in which you had a valid point - I have acknowledged as much.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why does the reason for not being able conceive "naturally with each other" even matter?

Because nature is dictating that they will not be parents. It's evolution. It's Darwin. I thought you progressives were all about education and science. Funny how you ignore all of that the moment your feelings pop up.

That's the problem with progressivism and why it is such a monumental failure. It is built entirely on feelings. It ignores all logic and reason in favor of they feel.

Ignorant equine excrement !! They are parents!! They have children! Are you really that stupid? Do you believe that the children that they have are less valuable, less deserving of the protections and advantages of having married parents than children of heterosexual parents , regardless of how they are conceived? You are pathetically ridiculous !!