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

[koshergrl]

And here's another study:

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

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

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

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

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

More significantly ,the survey compares children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by married parents. At the same time he talks about family stability and seems to ignore the issue of marriage as a stabilizing factor for a couple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normalizing depravity and putting children into the hands of sociopaths and freaks does not give children a "better chance of stability in their relationships".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And here's another study:

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

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

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

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

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

More significantly ,the survey compares children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by married parents. At the same time he talks about family stability and seems to ignore the issue of marriage as a stabilizing factor for a couple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normalizing depravity and putting children into the hands of sociopaths and freaks does not give children a "better chance of stability in their relationships".

That is exactly the pathetic and moronic response that I expected to my lengthy and detailed AND FACTUAL post

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

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

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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

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

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

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

August 12, 2015 by HRC staff

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

DISGUSTING the way RWs refer to children as "IT" as they condemn them to a life in foster homes instead of with a loving family.

If you don't like gays, talk to the straight couples who make them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

In addition consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know “a lot of people who are looking for a child? Really, A lot of people ? How many? What are they looking for? A healthy infant no doubt.

You said “What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.” What the hell does that mean? You just brush aside the benefits of a second parent adoption.

Now you say that you wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster?? You also ignore the fact that there are often no other options. Plus, even if there were other options, it is still discrimination, pure and simple to deny a same sex couple the chance to adopt when there is no good reason to do so.

This is just about what I expected from you. A non answer. Not even an attempt at dealing with the issues that I raised. You have confirmed what I really already know about you.

 

[koshergrl]

And here's another study:

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

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

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

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

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

More significantly ,the survey compares children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by married parents. At the same time he talks about family stability and seems to ignore the issue of marriage as a stabilizing factor for a couple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normalizing depravity and putting children into the hands of sociopaths and freaks does not give children a "better chance of stability in their relationships".

That is exactly the pathetic and moronic response that I expected to my lengthy and detailed AND FACTUAL post

Your post is garbage propaganda. I treated it a lot more seriously than it deserves.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

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

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

I said legitimate studies, not the horseshit that you presented. I don't know how shit tastes. Maybe you can tell me. This is what real research looks like:

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. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

• 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 :
  • Discussed "...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..."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

Only a fucking idiot would believe that. Many states have been allowing adoption by gays since long before same sex marriage was possible. Most states allow adoption by single people, straight or gay. New Jersey has been allowing JOINT adoption by UNMARRIED gay couples since 1997. It's not a problem except in the sick minds of bigots.

 

[Iceweasel]

You know “a lot of people who are looking for a child? Really, A lot of people ? How many? What are they looking for? A healthy infant no doubt.

You said “What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.” What the hell does that mean? You just brush aside the benefits of a second parent adoption.

Now you say that you wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster?? You also ignore the fact that there are often no other options. Plus, even if there were other options, it is still discrimination, pure and simple to deny a same sex couple the chance to adopt when there is no good reason to do so.

This is just about what I expected from you. A non answer. Not even an attempt at dealing with the issues that I raised. You have confirmed what I really already know about you.

I answered you, you fucking dishonest asshole. THAT is what I expected from you and it didn't take long. You don't agree with what was said so it doesn't exist. Fuck you and everyone like you. That's a great example of why children need to be kept from homosexual hands, they are universally anti-thought. They feel their way through life, they don't think down the road and what's best for the kids.

Female homosexuals are male haters, no way should they have a child in their care. Male homosexuals can't get enough dick. No way should they have a child in their care. Trying to twist adoption rights into the same sex marriage joke is equally dishonest, but par for the course.

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

I said legitimate studies, not the horseshit that you presented. I don't know how shit tastes. Maybe you can tell me. This is what real research looks like:

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. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

• 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 :
  • Discussed "...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..."

Both of mine are every bit as legitimate, and #2 is considerable MORE legitimate, than any of the studies you barfed up.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

Only a fucking idiot would believe that. Many states have been allowing adoption by gays since long before same sex marriage was possible. Most states allow adoption by single people, straight or gay. New Jersey has been allowing JOINT adoption by UNMARRIED gay couples since 1997. It's not a problem except in the sick minds of bigots.

NPolitical correctness has been around for a while, that does not mean the gender roles that nature has defined no longer exist. You can't legislate nature no matter how badly you want to.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

I said legitimate studies, not the horseshit that you presented. I don't know how shit tastes. Maybe you can tell me. This is what real research looks like:

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. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

• 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 :
  • Discussed "...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..."

Both of mine are every bit as legitimate, and #2 is considerable MORE legitimate, than any of the studies you barfed up.

Because you say so.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You know “a lot of people who are looking for a child? Really, A lot of people ? How many? What are they looking for? A healthy infant no doubt.

You said “What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.” What the hell does that mean? You just brush aside the benefits of a second parent adoption.

Now you say that you wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster?? You also ignore the fact that there are often no other options. Plus, even if there were other options, it is still discrimination, pure and simple to deny a same sex couple the chance to adopt when there is no good reason to do so.

This is just about what I expected from you. A non answer. Not even an attempt at dealing with the issues that I raised. You have confirmed what I really already know about you.

I answered you, you fucking dishonest asshole. THAT is what I expected from you and it didn't take long. You don't agree with what was said so it doesn't exist. Fuck you and everyone like you. That's a great example of why children need to be kept from homosexual hands, they are universally anti-thought. They feel their way through life, they don't think down the road and what's best for the kids.

Female homosexuals are male haters, no way should they have a child in their care. Male homosexuals can't get enough dick. No way should they have a child in their care. Trying to twist adoption rights into the same sex marriage joke is equally dishonest, but par for the course.

A pleasure to have gotten you so riled up!! My work is done here. You have been exposed for what you are. Have a good evening

 

[koshergrl]

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

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus

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

Family Research Council

More horseshit from the Witherspoon institute. Regnerus is a joke and a fraud. He is not “vindicated “because he and the Witherspoon institute says that he is.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


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

The Family Research Council is a hate group with and agenda.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. Family Research Council

And:

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf


Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....jVEwi8PU.dpuf

You told me to produce a single study to back up what I said.

I produced two. One from Princeton.

Of course you're going to maintain that all the studies done by fags to justify homo parenting of pre-pubescent boys are completely objective, but nevermind that. You implied that there wasn't a single study that supported what I said.

There are two.

How does shit taste when you have your face rubbed in it?

I said legitimate studies, not the horseshit that you presented. I don't know how shit tastes. Maybe you can tell me. This is what real research looks like:

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. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

• 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 :
  • Discussed "...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..."

Both of mine are every bit as legitimate, and #2 is considerable MORE legitimate, than any of the studies you barfed up.

Because you say so.....

Not just me, cupcake....

 

[Iceweasel]

You know “a lot of people who are looking for a child? Really, A lot of people ? How many? What are they looking for? A healthy infant no doubt.

You said “What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.” What the hell does that mean? You just brush aside the benefits of a second parent adoption.

Now you say that you wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster?? You also ignore the fact that there are often no other options. Plus, even if there were other options, it is still discrimination, pure and simple to deny a same sex couple the chance to adopt when there is no good reason to do so.

This is just about what I expected from you. A non answer. Not even an attempt at dealing with the issues that I raised. You have confirmed what I really already know about you.

I answered you, you fucking dishonest asshole. THAT is what I expected from you and it didn't take long. You don't agree with what was said so it doesn't exist. Fuck you and everyone like you. That's a great example of why children need to be kept from homosexual hands, they are universally anti-thought. They feel their way through life, they don't think down the road and what's best for the kids.

Female homosexuals are male haters, no way should they have a child in their care. Male homosexuals can't get enough dick. No way should they have a child in their care. Trying to twist adoption rights into the same sex marriage joke is equally dishonest, but par for the course.

A pleasure to have gotten you so riled up!! My work is done here. You have been exposed for what you are. Have a good evening

The perversion is all yours asshole. Stay AWAY from children, you demented fuck.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You know “a lot of people who are looking for a child? Really, A lot of people ? How many? What are they looking for? A healthy infant no doubt.

You said “What does homosexual biological parents have to do with it? They need to take care of their kids, period.” What the hell does that mean? You just brush aside the benefits of a second parent adoption.

Now you say that you wouldn't oppose a gay couple adopting if they passed muster?? You also ignore the fact that there are often no other options. Plus, even if there were other options, it is still discrimination, pure and simple to deny a same sex couple the chance to adopt when there is no good reason to do so.

This is just about what I expected from you. A non answer. Not even an attempt at dealing with the issues that I raised. You have confirmed what I really already know about you.

I answered you, you fucking dishonest asshole. THAT is what I expected from you and it didn't take long. You don't agree with what was said so it doesn't exist. Fuck you and everyone like you. That's a great example of why children need to be kept from homosexual hands, they are universally anti-thought. They feel their way through life, they don't think down the road and what's best for the kids.

Female homosexuals are male haters, no way should they have a child in their care. Male homosexuals can't get enough dick. No way should they have a child in their care. Trying to twist adoption rights into the same sex marriage joke is equally dishonest, but par for the course.

A pleasure to have gotten you so riled up!! My work is done here. You have been exposed for what you are. Have a good evening

The perversion is all yours asshole. Stay AWAY from children, you demented fuck.

Of all the moronic things that anyone can say or do, perhaps the stupidest is to make an assumption about someone's sexuality based on their support for gay rights. That really says it all!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

Only a fucking idiot would believe that. Many states have been allowing adoption by gays since long before same sex marriage was possible. Most states allow adoption by single people, straight or gay. New Jersey has been allowing JOINT adoption by UNMARRIED gay couples since 1997. It's not a problem except in the sick minds of bigots.

Speak for yourself, idiot. And drop the progressive from your handle because you're dangerously backwards. Law has been allowing for single motherhood by choice, too, and that does nothing but contribute to the problem.
You need to progress a little and get out of the 1960's.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

Only a fucking idiot would believe that. Many states have been allowing adoption by gays since long before same sex marriage was possible. Most states allow adoption by single people, straight or gay. New Jersey has been allowing JOINT adoption by UNMARRIED gay couples since 1997. It's not a problem except in the sick minds of bigots.

Speak for yourself, idiot. And drop the progressive from your handle because you're dangerously backwards. Law has been allowing for single motherhood by choice, too, and that does nothing but contribute to the problem.
You need to progress a little and get out of the 1960's.

What problem is that smiley?? I need to get out of the 1960s? You need to get out of the1860's

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good morning gang!! In the news today:

Georgia Agencies Receive All Children – All Families Seal of Recognition

HRC Foundation was proud to present a “Seal of Recognition” to two adoption agencies in Georgia. The seal, which is part of HRC Foundation’s All Children-All Families, is for exemplary commitment to compassionate and competent care of LGBT youth and families in the child welfare system. Georgia Agencies Receive All Children – All Families Seal of Recognition

Have a nice day!!