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

[elektra]

I get it, you're to mentally lazy and deficient to deal with abstracts and summaries. Or is it that you will just do anything to desperately cling to your bigoted views. A little of both I would guess. Here is more. There are plenty of links in here so you can get as much detail as you like as to methodology. Lets see what you can do with this:

Wow, you are one angry, mean, motherfucker. I have yet to express my view. And just as I have yet to express my view, you have no idea who I am and how I live, nor what my sexuality is. You speak of bigotry, you are the classic example. But beyond that, the anger and hate you spew is extrodinary.

You speak of being lazy, deficient? Yet it is you who provided nothing but a cut/paste of something you found with google? I do not see your commentary of what you have provided. You are so mentally lazy you cut/pasted the whole thing as if that is some sort of TRUMP card that wins your argument and validates your OPINION. You are mentally lazy, you could not selectively quote, provide your commentary, and offer a personal observation that everyone relates to, to confirm what you call a study? Or is it an article? I have yet to look. It really is telling, that you think to cut/paste, is a TRUMP card, that ends all discussion.

You are one helluva MORON.

 

[elektra]

I posted the actual study that you were incapable of finding. Attempts to distract have failed. The evidence you sought was provided...and you are apparently also incapable of responding to it.

You can not actually quote what you think is relevant and offer your commentary? Backed up with tangible experience, in which we can than make our own judgments? You think your simpleton post ends all discussion? Watch for my next post, idiot!

 

[elektra]

Of course you can't provide evidence that gays aren't giving adopted children good homes. In fact, all studies show they provide stellar homes.

Yes, we know you are a right wing douche bag. Oh, and it is your bigoted position that doesn't hold up to actual facts.

post your facts

OK..

In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.

Even the notion that you try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies

What We Know Blog | What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents?
I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]

Okay, I get it, you and nobody can produce studies, but what you can do is get one study that says what all the other studies says.

Anything and everything you come up with, still does not dispute the fact, children naturally find homosexuality gross, repulsive.

You should produce a study, so I can show all the little flaws in the study. Go ahead, get a first hand study of actual families. I have been down this road before on these boards.

First and foremost, you will link but not produce a study. Most likely that will be to a simple abstract, nothing more, not the study.

If a study is produced, it will not really be a study but an editorial, or a study of a study, an opinion piece really. And when I check the sources of that study, the studies it is based on, I will quote what you do not want to hear or believe.

So go ahead, produce a real study, and lets see what you base your flawed opinion on.

Your side is claiming studies, facts, and science. So go ahead, be brave, produce links or simply post the studies you must possess to make such claims as to what they state.

I get it, you're to mentally lazy and deficient to deal with abstracts and summaries. Or is it that you will just do anything to desperately cling to your bigoted views. A little of both I would guess. Here is more. There are plenty of links in here so you can get as much detail as you like as to methodology. Lets see what you can do with this:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:
An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.
However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving
Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.
"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com
A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting:
Studies of same-sex parenting
1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.
There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal.
1 They iscussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

You are suppose to link what you quote, according to the rules of usmessageboards. I guess the rules do not matter to theprogressivepatriot, you simply dictate what will be and fuck the rules, right!

Link and I will comment, without a link, you prove yourself to be nothing more than a troll, that thinks they can dictate. Once we make it past this glaring error on your part, we can continue to the rest of your rant.

 

[elektra]

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

Lazy would be to simply link without quoting and commenting. I must thank you for making the point I observed children making, that children naturally do not want to be raised by homosexuals.

You should read what you link to, your study says kids of homosexual families have behavior problems!

 

[Seawytch]

I posted the actual study that you were incapable of finding. Attempts to distract have failed. The evidence you sought was provided...and you are apparently also incapable of responding to it.

You can not actually quote what you think is relevant and offer your commentary? Backed up with tangible experience, in which we can than make our own judgments? You think your simpleton post ends all discussion? Watch for my next post, idiot!

That's it...shift those goalposts. You asked for evidence and it was provided. Go ahead and keep trying to distract from it though.

 

[elektra]

I posted the actual study that you were incapable of finding. Attempts to distract have failed. The evidence you sought was provided...and you are apparently also incapable of responding to it.

I never looked for a study of any sort, your idea that I was looking for a study is really bizarre. You are delusional. I never sought evidence! Again you are delusional. I can respond to anything you post, and have. First and foremost, you have not read nor understand what you posted. In the context of what I have posted in this thread, your link is meaningless. Your link does not address how children feel about seeing a man and a man kiss or how they feel about seeing a man with a 5 o'clock shadow wearing a mini-skirt.

You really are deranged, and if you are typical of all homosexuals that adopt 5 year old boys, the sooner this practice is stopped, the better.

 

[elektra]

That's it...shift those goalposts. You asked for evidence and it was provided. Go ahead and keep trying to distract from it though.

You have a cracked skull, I never asked for evidence and you can not quote or link a comment I have made asking for evidence. You are really delusional. If this is how you interpret the things around you, you should be committed.

 

[elektra]

…
“The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their
relationships,” Wilcox replied.

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

I was going to play along and take a look at what you "shared", but the link I followed is bad? How is it that you claim to know so much and have all the answers yet intellectually you are very lazy, providing us with bad links? How do you come up with bad links? The obvious answer is you google something that you suppose agrees with you, and simply cut/paste the link as if you won an argument.

Sorry, that don't cut it in the real world. If you expect to be taken seriously, you should be quoting, meaning selectively, not simply cut/paste of entire articles. And then you should offer your own commentary on the relevance of what you quoted. And then you must provide a link that works, according to the message board rules. If I count posts in which you do not link with this last post of yours with links that fail, you have half a dozen bad posts.

There is a reason links fail, the information is bad, and is took down, or the information does not say what the person thought it did when they wrote the article, so they take down the link so they can not be proven wrong. Or it is simply sloppy, irrelevant work.

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

Not Found
The requested URL was not found on the server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Can you not engage intelligently, supporting your posts, and your claims, with quotes, and commentary regarding why you think a study or an article is relevant. Any simpleton moron can post a link. That simply shows you know nothing and must rely on links to express or confirm your opinion. It is the lazy, idiot, such as yourself, that thinks a cut/paste of a link makes your point or confirms your opinion as fact.

You are a fool, and fools can not be educated nor changed.

You are one , insane fucking piece of work. First you claim that we are not providing sufficient proof of our position because our evidence is incomplete or not sufficient, then when we do, you rant about how "Any simpleton moron can post a link." Meanwhile, you have provided nothing, either in the form of outside evidence in the form of scientific studies, or anything resembling logic on your own part to support your bigoted position. Give me a fucking break!

Interesting how you have nothing ton say about the bogus "study" that I refer to in post 116 above. That sort of horseshit is a clear example of the desperation and dishonesty of those seeking to disparage gays as parents and you can't deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

…
“The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their
relationships,” Wilcox replied.

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

I was going to play along and take a look at what you "shared", but the link I followed is bad? How is it that you claim to know so much and have all the answers yet intellectually you are very lazy, providing us with bad links? How do you come up with bad links? The obvious answer is you google something that you suppose agrees with you, and simply cut/paste the link as if you won an argument.

Sorry, that don't cut it in the real world. If you expect to be taken seriously, you should be quoting, meaning selectively, not simply cut/paste of entire articles. And then you should offer your own commentary on the relevance of what you quoted. And then you must provide a link that works, according to the message board rules. If I count posts in which you do not link with this last post of yours with links that fail, you have half a dozen bad posts.

There is a reason links fail, the information is bad, and is took down, or the information does not say what the person thought it did when they wrote the article, so they take down the link so they can not be proven wrong. Or it is simply sloppy, irrelevant work.

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

Not Found
The requested URL was not found on the server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.

Shit happens. Links go bad. Post something that supports your position that gays should not be parents or shut the fuck up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I get it, you're to mentally lazy and deficient to deal with abstracts and summaries. Or is it that you will just do anything to desperately cling to your bigoted views. A little of both I would guess. Here is more. There are plenty of links in here so you can get as much detail as you like as to methodology. Lets see what you can do with this:

Wow, you are one angry, mean, motherfucker. I have yet to express my view. And just as I have yet to express my view, you have no idea who I am and how I live, nor what my sexuality is. You speak of bigotry, you are the classic example. But beyond that, the anger and hate you spew is extrodinary.

You speak of being lazy, deficient? Yet it is you who provided nothing but a cut/paste of something you found with google? I do not see your commentary of what you have provided. You are so mentally lazy you cut/pasted the whole thing as if that is some sort of TRUMP card that wins your argument and validates your OPINION. You are mentally lazy, you could not selectively quote, provide your commentary, and offer a personal observation that everyone relates to, to confirm what you call a study? Or is it an article? I have yet to look. It really is telling, that you think to cut/paste, is a TRUMP card, that ends all discussion.

You are one helluva MORON.

I made no assumption about your sexuality or how you live but you most certainly did make your views known about the issue of gays and children. I realize that it is quite possible that you are a self effacing, guilt ridden, depressed fag.

You deride me for "cut and past" evidence that supports my position, yet you offer nothing of your own to support yours. The desperation is showing.

 

[elektra]

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

Can you not engage intelligently, supporting your posts, and your claims, with quotes, and commentary regarding why you think a study or an article is relevant. Any simpleton moron can post a link. That simply shows you know nothing and must rely on links to express or confirm your opinion. It is the lazy, idiot, such as yourself, that thinks a cut/paste of a link makes your point or confirms your opinion as fact.

You are a fool, and fools can not be educated nor changed.

You are one , insane fucking piece of work. First you claim that we are not providing sufficient proof of our position because our evidence is incomplete or not sufficient, then when we do, you rant about how "Any simpleton moron can post a link." Meanwhile, you have provided nothing, either in the form of outside evidence in the form of scientific studies, or anything resembling logic on your own part to support your bigoted position. Give me a fucking break!

Interesting how you have nothing ton say about the bogus "study" that I refer to in post 116 above. That sort of horseshit is a clear example of the desperation and dishonesty of those seeking to disparage gays as parents and you can't deal with it.

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

You failed, get over it, you could not even comment.

You make things up, I did not ask for evidence! Not once. I see why you are so wrong, you do not comprehend the simple.

Further, you gave a link that did not work. Another fail.

And lets be clear, what you find with GOOGLE IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!

 

[Picaro]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

 

[Seawytch]

I posted the actual study that you were incapable of finding. Attempts to distract have failed. The evidence you sought was provided...and you are apparently also incapable of responding to it.

I never looked for a study of any sort, your idea that I was looking for a study is really bizarre. You are delusional. I never sought evidence! Again you are delusional. I can respond to anything you post, and have. First and foremost, you have not read nor understand what you posted. In the context of what I have posted in this thread, your link is meaningless. Your link does not address how children feel about seeing a man and a man kiss or how they feel about seeing a man with a 5 o'clock shadow wearing a mini-skirt.

You really are deranged, and if you are typical of all homosexuals that adopt 5 year old boys, the sooner this practice is stopped, the better.

You asked for evidence and it was provided. You wanted a study that showed that gays adopting kids was not detrimental to their well being. It was provided. You can try to distract and deflect, but it's just dancing.

Our kids are fine. Worry about kids of divorce, bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

You pulled your statistics directly out of your ass. Those are ass facts and not even remotely resembling the truth.

 

[Picaro]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

You pulled your statistics directly out of your ass. Those are ass facts and not even remotely resembling the truth.

lol nonsense. Even Bill Clinton refused to sign off on approving your 'rights movement' for NGO status at the UN because of its cozy and open endorsement of pedophilia and kiddie rapers, and he's a sociopath with no particular principles re kinky fetishes. Too bad your gimp 'movement' left so much evidence around in its early 'glory days' about their concept of 'diversity', isn't it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Can you not engage intelligently, supporting your posts, and your claims, with quotes, and commentary regarding why you think a study or an article is relevant. Any simpleton moron can post a link. That simply shows you know nothing and must rely on links to express or confirm your opinion. It is the lazy, idiot, such as yourself, that thinks a cut/paste of a link makes your point or confirms your opinion as fact.

You are a fool, and fools can not be educated nor changed.

You are one , insane fucking piece of work. First you claim that we are not providing sufficient proof of our position because our evidence is incomplete or not sufficient, then when we do, you rant about how "Any simpleton moron can post a link." Meanwhile, you have provided nothing, either in the form of outside evidence in the form of scientific studies, or anything resembling logic on your own part to support your bigoted position. Give me a fucking break!

Interesting how you have nothing ton say about the bogus "study" that I refer to in post 116 above. That sort of horseshit is a clear example of the desperation and dishonesty of those seeking to disparage gays as parents and you can't deal with it.

A cherry picked cut/paste, that you do not link, which is definately against the USMB rules is not allowed. All quotes must be linked.

Not linking is not proof, it is against the rules, and a very narrow response.

You failed, get over it, you could not even comment.

You make things up, I did not ask for evidence! Not once. I see why you are so wrong, you do not comprehend the simple.

Further, you gave a link that did not work. Another fail.

And lets be clear, what you find with GOOGLE IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!

You are clearly one , demented moron. The lengthy piece that I posted contained about 11 links, and all but one worked. That one was actually a minor point. You could not deal with any of it. All that you can do is blather about how "google is not evidence" while you continue to fail to provide anything at all in the way of documentation to support what ever the hell it is that you're trying to say. You are beyond the pale and not worth another key stroke or nanosecond of my time.

Here is the corrected link:

The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships,” Wilcox replied. Marriage Equality Opponent Admits ‘No Difference’ Between Same Sex And Heterosexual Families | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

Now STFU!

 

[Seawytch]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

You pulled your statistics directly out of your ass. Those are ass facts and not even remotely resembling the truth.

lol nonsense. Even Bill Clinton refused to sign off on approving your 'rights movement' for NGO status at the UN because of its cozy and open endorsement of pedophilia and kiddie rapers, and he's a sociopath with no particular principles re kinky fetishes. Too bad your gimp 'movement' left so much evidence around in its early 'glory days' about their concept of 'diversity', isn't it?

Seriously...do you make this shit up in your mind or is it Alex Jones?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

Horseshit! You have no fucking idea what your talking about. Just inane and bigoted bovine excrement:

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Queer couples should not be allowed to adopt as a rule. However, carefully vetted queer couples would probably be better for a child than some foster parents.

With less than 1% of homosexuals having any kind of long term 'relationship', that's not a large enough number to make it worth the trouble. The high rates of kiddie rapers who are homosexual however does make it worth the trouble to just avoid allowing the mentally ill to adopt children, and the 'Gay Rights' hoax is extremely Pedo Friendly, hardly a demographic that should even be allowed around children at all in the first place.

You pulled your statistics directly out of your ass. Those are ass facts and not even remotely resembling the truth.

lol nonsense. Even Bill Clinton refused to sign off on approving your 'rights movement' for NGO status at the UN because of its cozy and open endorsement of pedophilia and kiddie rapers, and he's a sociopath with no particular principles re kinky fetishes. Too bad your gimp 'movement' left so much evidence around in its early 'glory days' about their concept of 'diversity', isn't it?

More inane equine excrement from another demented dumb fuck.