Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Seawytch]

Your incomplete study doesn't consider that the children being raised by homos are living in communities dominated by structured families and the impact that norm has on their circumstance. Move those homo faux families into black neighborhoods and give it a little while.

Dude, you're getting racism in your homophobia.

You need math lessons.

That's funny coming from the guy who says children need a mother and a father because...single parent homes. I happen to know that two is better than one and that children need two parents, not a mother and a father.

And you still have not been able to explain that if children indeed need a mother and a father as you claim, then how is it that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

Begging the question. No scientific study ever said what you just said. And anyone who knows what scientific studies are would ever say that. Maybe you should have stayed in school past the sixth grade. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20...

I already linked to the study that said exactly that...children don't need a mother and a father, they need two parents. That Wees fellow is trying to use single family homes to counter the mounds of evidence. It's a lame attempt, but an attempt. You cite nothing except "conventional wisdom".

 

[Seawytch]

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. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.

Stacey concluded: "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
​

Do Children Need a Mother and Father?

 

[kaz]

Your incomplete study doesn't consider that the children being raised by homos are living in communities dominated by structured families and the impact that norm has on their circumstance. Move those homo faux families into black neighborhoods and give it a little while.

Dude, you're getting racism in your homophobia.

You need math lessons.

That's funny coming from the guy who says children need a mother and a father because...single parent homes. I happen to know that two is better than one and that children need two parents, not a mother and a father.

And you still have not been able to explain that if children indeed need a mother and a father as you claim, then how is it that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

Begging the question. No scientific study ever said what you just said. And anyone who knows what scientific studies are would ever say that. Maybe you should have stayed in school past the sixth grade. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20...

I already linked to the study that said exactly that...children don't need a mother and a father, they need two parents. That Wees fellow is trying to use single family homes to counter the mounds of evidence. It's a lame attempt, but an attempt. You cite nothing except "conventional wisdom".

Speaking of your dropping out in the sixth grade, you don't know how to use quote marks, you would have learned that in high school. Just FYI, you don't use quote marks when you are attempting to paraphrase, you use it when you are citing actual words said.

Also, strawman, I didn't cite "conventional wisdom." Now see on the quote marks how that works? I quoted the words because you actually used those words, word for word, get it now?

And cite from the study where they said they proved "there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?" Note I cited your actual words again, hence the quote marks. You don't use quote marks for the voices in your head or when you are saying how you interpret what I said. That is a paraphrase, and not quoted

 

[kaz]

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. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.

Stacey concluded: "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
​

Do Children Need a Mother and Father?

Define "need" and "define "do as well on average." How is "as well" measured? Grades? Income? Scientific studies have to define the measurement system. And this in no was says there is no difference, it says they do "as well on average," what ever that means

I agree one good parent is better than two bad ones, but that is not a point in contention.

 

[bodecea]

Dude, you're getting racism in your homophobia.

You need math lessons.

That's funny coming from the guy who says children need a mother and a father because...single parent homes. I happen to know that two is better than one and that children need two parents, not a mother and a father.

And you still have not been able to explain that if children indeed need a mother and a father as you claim, then how is it that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

Begging the question. No scientific study ever said what you just said. And anyone who knows what scientific studies are would ever say that. Maybe you should have stayed in school past the sixth grade. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20...

I already linked to the study that said exactly that...children don't need a mother and a father, they need two parents. That Wees fellow is trying to use single family homes to counter the mounds of evidence. It's a lame attempt, but an attempt. You cite nothing except "conventional wisdom".

Speaking of your dropping out in the sixth grade, you don't know how to use quote marks, you would have learned that in high school. Just FYI, you don't use quote marks when you are attempting to paraphrase, you use it when you are citing actual words said.

Also, strawman, I didn't cite "conventional wisdom." Now see on the quote marks how that works? I quoted the words because you actually used those words, word for word, get it now?

And cite from the study where they said they proved "there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?" Note I cited your actual words again, hence the quote marks. You don't use quote marks for the voices in your head or when you are saying how you interpret what I said. That is a paraphrase, and not quoted

Hmmmmmm

 

[kaz]

You need math lessons.

That's funny coming from the guy who says children need a mother and a father because...single parent homes. I happen to know that two is better than one and that children need two parents, not a mother and a father.

And you still have not been able to explain that if children indeed need a mother and a father as you claim, then how is it that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

Begging the question. No scientific study ever said what you just said. And anyone who knows what scientific studies are would ever say that. Maybe you should have stayed in school past the sixth grade. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20...

I already linked to the study that said exactly that...children don't need a mother and a father, they need two parents. That Wees fellow is trying to use single family homes to counter the mounds of evidence. It's a lame attempt, but an attempt. You cite nothing except "conventional wisdom".

Speaking of your dropping out in the sixth grade, you don't know how to use quote marks, you would have learned that in high school. Just FYI, you don't use quote marks when you are attempting to paraphrase, you use it when you are citing actual words said.

Also, strawman, I didn't cite "conventional wisdom." Now see on the quote marks how that works? I quoted the words because you actually used those words, word for word, get it now?

And cite from the study where they said they proved "there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?" Note I cited your actual words again, hence the quote marks. You don't use quote marks for the voices in your head or when you are saying how you interpret what I said. That is a paraphrase, and not quoted

Hmmmmmm

Maybe you and seawytch can go back to grade school together. While she's learning the English language, you can take addition and subtraction

 

[Seawytch]

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. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.

Stacey concluded: "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."
​

Do Children Need a Mother and Father?

Define "need" and "define "do as well on average." How is "as well" measured? L

Grades? Income?

Yes...among others.

Scientific studies have to define the measurement system. And this in no was says there is no difference, it says they do "as well on average," what ever that means

Distinction without a difference.

agree one good parent is better than two bad ones, but that is not a point in contention.

"This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said."

They don't, they need:

"responsible, committed, stable parenting."

The gender of those stable parents isn't what is important. There is only ONE gender based parenting skill.

 

[Londoner]

I'm glad this post surfaced again.

The Constitution says nothing about how legal rights should benefit everyone. I don't benefit from handicap rights.

If the OP wants a bumper sticker.

Freedom wins when the maximum number of law abiding adults benefit from any given legal right. To exclude people arbitrarily from the purview of a particular right is contrary to the spirit of freedom upon which are country was founded.

We give handicapped citizens access ramps not because we all benefit from access ramps but because we value the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. To exclude someone from participation because they were born crippled or gay runs contrary to the spirit of a free society.

The state doesn't exist to impose religion on gay people. It exists to hand out contracts to free adults. The OP should favor a state where Big Government IS NOT in the bedroom of consenting adults, unless there is a clear interest at stake.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm glad this post surfaced again.

The Constitution says nothing about how legal rights should benefit everyone. I don't benefit from handicap rights.

If the OP wants a bumper sticker.

Freedom wins when the maximum number of law abiding adults benefit from any given legal right. To exclude people arbitrarily from the purview of a particular right is contrary to the spirit of freedom upon which are country was founded.

We give handicapped citizens access ramps not because we all benefit from access ramps but because we value the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. To exclude someone from participation because they were born crippled or gay runs contrary to the spirit of a free society.

The state doesn't exist to impose religion on gay people. It exists to hand out contracts to free adults. The OP should favor a state where Big Government IS NOT in the bedroom of consenting adults, unless there is a clear interest at stake.

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

 

[Syriusly]

So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.

Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

I know you don't know anything at all about science, but to make a statment like that is ridiculous. Child rearing has untold variables, you need to have a measurement system in place and make a specific conclusion. Do you mean there is "no difference" educationally? Career wise? Income? What measurement are you claiming as "outcome?"

Also, failure to detect a difference is in no way proof there is not one. Logic really isn't your thing

I know that all the studies of children raised by couples show that there is no difference in outcomes between our children and yours. The measurements are all in the studies. For example;

A new study from the University of Colorado Denver finds that scientists agree that children of same-sex parents experience "no difference" on a range of social and behavioral outcomes compared to children of heterosexual or single parents.
​

So can you answer the question? If children, as you claim, need a father and mother to have "ideal" lives, why is there no difference in outcomes among our children, the children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

You argue like a five-year-old. It's about having both genders in the home, not whether homos can be good parents.
The data is empirical and consistently repeated to the detriment of the society.

I see...so having actual facts and data supporting those fact, to you, is "arguing like a five year old" while you believe you merely stating an unsupported opinion is logical.

You have not been able to, in any way, support your opinion. Using single parent homes does not support your claims.

You can't even answer the simple question: If children, as you claim, need a father and mother, why is there no difference in outcomes among our children, the children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

There is a difference and I've referenced it several times. Every community with a predominance or plurality of unstructured families suffers social demise. Homo couples lack that necessary structure and contribute to the problem. You insist on wagging the dog with the anecdotal.
I'm through with your childish, defeated, contrarian antagonism.

You are fed up with people confronting you with facts that refute your bigotry?

 

[Syriusly]

Your incomplete study doesn't consider that the children being raised by homos are living in communities dominated by structured families and the impact that norm has on their circumstance. Move those homo faux families into black neighborhoods and give it a little while.

As opposed to your complete lack of studies supporting any of your bigoted claims.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm glad this post surfaced again.

The Constitution says nothing about how legal rights should benefit everyone. I don't benefit from handicap rights.

If the OP wants a bumper sticker.

Freedom wins when the maximum number of law abiding adults benefit from any given legal right. To exclude people arbitrarily from the purview of a particular right is contrary to the spirit of freedom upon which are country was founded.

We give handicapped citizens access ramps not because we all benefit from access ramps but because we value the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. To exclude someone from participation because they were born crippled or gay runs contrary to the spirit of a free society.

The state doesn't exist to impose religion on gay people. It exists to hand out contracts to free adults. The OP should favor a state where Big Government IS NOT in the bedroom of consenting adults, unless there is a clear interest at stake.

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

Absolutely.

However, for example Kaz and his wife are getting special government 'perks' for being married- which have nothing to do with children- the government doesn't give a damn whether they have children or not.

Kaz has his perks- and damn well doesn't want to share them with gay couples- he doesn't want to have to pay gay couples for the perks gay couples have to pay for his marriage.

So no- no one has a right to be subsidized- but we do have the right to equal treatment before the law. And that is not equal treatment.

 

[bripat9643]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

No, gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. I'm using the definition of "have" that means "conceive."

 

[Syriusly]

Your incomplete study doesn't consider that the children being raised by homos are living in communities dominated by structured families and the impact that norm has on their circumstance. Move those homo faux families into black neighborhoods and give it a little while.

Dude, you're getting racism in your homophobia.

You need math lessons.

That's funny coming from the guy who says children need a mother and a father because...single parent homes. I happen to know that two is better than one and that children need two parents, not a mother and a father.

And you still have not been able to explain that if children indeed need a mother and a father as you claim, then how is it that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?

Begging the question. No scientific study ever said what you just said. And anyone who knows what scientific studies are would ever say that. Maybe you should have stayed in school past the sixth grade. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20...

Begging the question. No scientific study supports your OP.

Just an example of you having your goodies and wanting to gay couples to pay for your perks.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm glad this post surfaced again.

The Constitution says nothing about how legal rights should benefit everyone. I don't benefit from handicap rights.

If the OP wants a bumper sticker.

Freedom wins when the maximum number of law abiding adults benefit from any given legal right. To exclude people arbitrarily from the purview of a particular right is contrary to the spirit of freedom upon which are country was founded.

We give handicapped citizens access ramps not because we all benefit from access ramps but because we value the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. To exclude someone from participation because they were born crippled or gay runs contrary to the spirit of a free society.

The state doesn't exist to impose religion on gay people. It exists to hand out contracts to free adults. The OP should favor a state where Big Government IS NOT in the bedroom of consenting adults, unless there is a clear interest at stake.

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

Absolutely.

However, for example Kaz and his wife are getting special government 'perks' for being married- which have nothing to do with children- the government doesn't give a damn whether they have children or not.

Kaz has his perks- and damn well doesn't want to share them with gay couples- he doesn't want to have to pay gay couples for the perks gay couples have to pay for his marriage.

Marriage has to happen before children are born for it to work effectively. Your theory would require the government to force people to get married after they conceived. Turds like you would be the first ones to object to such a policy. So your argument boils down to saying that the government doesn't follow a ridiculous policy that even you are opposed to.

It's a supremely stupid argument, but that's what we've come to expect from the defenders of homo marriage like you.

 

[Syriusly]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

No, gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. I'm using the definition of "have" that means "conceive."

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

 

[bripat9643]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

No, gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. I'm using the definition of "have" that means "conceive."

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

Nope. The claim that they do not reproduce is technically accurate. each of the members my reproduce, but the couple doesn't.

Gay couples have a 0% chance of reproducing. The odds are more like 80% with heterosexual couples.

 

[Londoner]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Being exempt from a penalty is not a subsidy. Being granted a tax break is a subsidy.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.