Rick Santorum Admits Gay Couples Can Be Just Normal Parents

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry but, you can't impregnate fecal matter

Brilliant! Thank you for dragging this thread on an important subject -that involves and effects actual human beings -to a new and disgusting low point. YOU are a fucking genius!!

 

[OKTexas]

All variate from the norm, your point? Made up relationships can't replace biological relationships. Some are decent substitutes, but none are capable of being identical.

So then you are saying that HETEROSEXUAL couples who cannot or do not have BIOLOGICAL children where BOTH are the BIOLOGICAL parents should not be treated the same-should not have the same rights- as HETEROSEXUALS who DO HAVE children in the NORMAL way?

OR.....are you saying that the HETEROSEXUAL couple who adopts child is a "decent substitute" but the gay couple who does is not?

What the fuck is YOUR point?

I didn't say that at all, but a hetro couple provides roll models from both genders, which is the better alternative in adoption. Remember we are making comparisons to a traditional family, with ties to both biological parents verses the alternatives.

I see. Now you're changing your story. You realized got called on the biology thing and realized that it was stupid, so now it's about gender role models. Now all that you have to do is come up with some credible , scientific evidence that have opposite sex parents is necessary, or even provides an advantage to a child's social and emotional development.

While your at it , you can also explain where all of those opposite sex couples that are needed for all the children who are in the foster care system are going to come from. Lastly, try to explain why it's OK, as some believe, to deprive children who are already in the care of a gay person, the securityof second parent or step parent adoption by the partner of that fay person.

Sorry you lack the ability to actually comprehend what you read, maybe your should read this string again, then try again. I have been totally consistent.

Tell you what old sport. Why don't we take a step back. Why don't you do this to clarify your position in one comprehensive and coherent post-if you can. Clearly state your position on each of the following issues- for, against, or whatever, and give you exact reasons:

1. Agency adoption by gay couples and individuals of children who have no legal parents.

2. Second parent and step parent adoption-by the partner or spouse of a gay person- of children who are already in the care of that gay person.

3. The conception of children by gay people and their partners with the help of medical and scientific technology

Please link to supporting documentation for anything that you present as fact.

Take your time.

Simple answer, none of it is normal, which is the subject of the thread. Carry on.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So then you are saying that HETEROSEXUAL couples who cannot or do not have BIOLOGICAL children where BOTH are the BIOLOGICAL parents should not be treated the same-should not have the same rights- as HETEROSEXUALS who DO HAVE children in the NORMAL way?

OR.....are you saying that the HETEROSEXUAL couple who adopts child is a "decent substitute" but the gay couple who does is not?

What the fuck is YOUR point?

I didn't say that at all, but a hetro couple provides roll models from both genders, which is the better alternative in adoption. Remember we are making comparisons to a traditional family, with ties to both biological parents verses the alternatives.

I see. Now you're changing your story. You realized got called on the biology thing and realized that it was stupid, so now it's about gender role models. Now all that you have to do is come up with some credible , scientific evidence that have opposite sex parents is necessary, or even provides an advantage to a child's social and emotional development.

While your at it , you can also explain where all of those opposite sex couples that are needed for all the children who are in the foster care system are going to come from. Lastly, try to explain why it's OK, as some believe, to deprive children who are already in the care of a gay person, the securityof second parent or step parent adoption by the partner of that fay person.

Sorry you lack the ability to actually comprehend what you read, maybe your should read this string again, then try again. I have been totally consistent.

Tell you what old sport. Why don't we take a step back. Why don't you do this to clarify your position in one comprehensive and coherent post-if you can. Clearly state your position on each of the following issues- for, against, or whatever, and give you exact reasons:

1. Agency adoption by gay couples and individuals of children who have no legal parents.

2. Second parent and step parent adoption-by the partner or spouse of a gay person- of children who are already in the care of that gay person.

3. The conception of children by gay people and their partners with the help of medical and scientific technology

Please link to supporting documentation for anything that you present as fact.

Take your time.

Simple answer, none of it is normal, which is the subject of the thread. Carry on.

That is just a stupid and lazy answer. I'll take it to mean that you are against all forms of parenting by gays but you can't actually defend that position. It's apparent that you don't give a shit about the kids at all and hate gays so much that you are willing to use the kids to punish them and in the process harm the children. You are no better than a garden variety child abuser.

And Tex, you might want to check out this thread. It's about Tex-ass! Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Carry on.

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

Santorum is not to be trusted. No evangelical is to be trusted. They can at any time have a Jimmy Carter moment and rationalize anything thing want based upon what they believe to be Christian principles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Despite admitting that gay couples can be just as good parents as anyone else, Santorum didn't back away from his position that gay marriage will destroy the traditional family."

The reprehensible social right: ignore facts and the truth, seek to propagate lies and hate.

 

[ninja007]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Despite admitting that gay couples can be just as good parents as anyone else, Santorum didn't back away from his position that gay marriage will destroy the traditional family."

The reprehensible social right: ignore facts and the truth, seek to propagate lies and hate.

He is a sick piece of equine excrement. However, unlike certain reprobates on this forum, he did show a glimmer of decency and humanity. On the other hade, it was probably strictly for political purposes and he may or ay not believe it. Probably not.

 

[g5000]

"I'm not saying that a same-sex couple can't have a very positive and nurturing environment."

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), who has aggressively opposed gay marriage throughout his career, admitted on Wednesday that gay couples can provide a healthy environment for children.

Santorum, who has said that the Supreme Court's June decision legalizing same-sex marriage, further put the "nail in the coffin" of the nuclear family, was pressed on his position by ABC's "The View" co-host Raven-Symoné, who said she considers herself a part of the "gay and transgender community."

"I don't understand why you feel like people in the gay and transgender community can't raise a very beautiful, smart, intelligent child as well as a man and a woman when sometimes, coming from a heterosexual family, there's a lot more fighting, there's a lot more going on," she said on "The View."

Santorum, who is running for president, responded by saying that same-sex couples could in fact create a good environment for their children.

"I'm not saying that a same-sex couple can't have a very positive and nurturing environment," he said.

Despite admitting that gay couples can be just as good parents as anyone else, Santorum didn't back away from his position that gay marriage will destroy the traditional family.

More: Rick Santorum Admits Gay Couples Can Be Just Normal Parents, But Still Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Well, there it is. Even Santorum admits that gay couples can provide a healthy environment for children. Many of us already knew that.

More lies from the left, no where did he say "normal". Because that is physically impossible, normal is having both biological parents.

So a heterosexual couple adopting a child is not "normal"?

A heterosexual couple using a sperm donor or a surrogate because one partner is unable to have children is not "normal"

A single parent who re-marries and where the spouse adopts the child is not"normal"?

What the fuck is normal? It seems to me it is only "abnormal" if it involves gay people. Anything else is "normal" regardless of whether or not both parents are biological parents.

Are all children who do not have two biological parents unworthy of the security of having two married and legal parents , or is it only the children of gay people.? It's either "normal" or it is not" normal" for one or both parents to not be biological. Which is it and what the fuck does it matter?

All variate from the norm, your point? Made up relationships can't replace biological relationships. Some are decent substitutes, but none are capable of being identical.

So then you are saying that HETEROSEXUAL couples who cannot or do not have BIOLOGICAL children where BOTH are the BIOLOGICAL parents should not be treated the same-should not have the same rights- as HETEROSEXUALS who DO HAVE children in the NORMAL way?

OR.....are you saying that the HETEROSEXUAL couple who adopts child is a "decent substitute" but the gay couple who does is not?

What the fuck is YOUR point?

I didn't say that at all, but a hetro couple provides roll models from both genders, which is the better alternative in adoption. Remember we are making comparisons to a traditional family, with ties to both biological parents verses the alternatives.

In a country where half of all marriages end in divorce, there is no "traditional family" any more, and that is all on heteros.

Gays can't break what has already been destroyed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

Post them dude!! Otherwise a statement like that is nothing more than a pathetic appeal to ignorance.

 

[ninja007]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

Post them dude!! Otherwise a statement like that is nothing more than a pathetic appeal to ignorance.

‘Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

 

[ninja007]

having two gay men as your parents? Talk about going to the grave early. Homosexual mens lifespan rates are about 20 years less than a hetero male.

 

[g5000]

having two gay men as your parents? Talk about going to the grave early. Homosexual mens lifespan rates are about 20 years less than a hetero male.

A myth.

And even if they did die at 67, their children would be long grown up.

 

[Seawytch]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

Funny you didn't link to them. Probably because not a one is from a reputable source.

Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare? | Golden Cradle Adoption Services

Our kids are fine. Even better now they too can have married parents.

 

[Seawytch]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

Post them dude!! Otherwise a statement like that is nothing more than a pathetic appeal to ignorance.

‘Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

And like clockwork they flock to the study that not only has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday, it was so flawed they threw it out of court.

Michigan Judge Delivers Devastating Blow to Junk Scientist Regnerus

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't say that at all, but a hetro couple provides roll models from both genders, which is the better alternative in adoption. Remember we are making comparisons to a traditional family, with ties to both biological parents verses the alternatives.

I see. Now you're changing your story. You realized got called on the biology thing and realized that it was stupid, so now it's about gender role models. Now all that you have to do is come up with some credible , scientific evidence that have opposite sex parents is necessary, or even provides an advantage to a child's social and emotional development.

While your at it , you can also explain where all of those opposite sex couples that are needed for all the children who are in the foster care system are going to come from. Lastly, try to explain why it's OK, as some believe, to deprive children who are already in the care of a gay person, the securityof second parent or step parent adoption by the partner of that fay person.

Sorry you lack the ability to actually comprehend what you read, maybe your should read this string again, then try again. I have been totally consistent.

Tell you what old sport. Why don't we take a step back. Why don't you do this to clarify your position in one comprehensive and coherent post-if you can. Clearly state your position on each of the following issues- for, against, or whatever, and give you exact reasons:

1. Agency adoption by gay couples and individuals of children who have no legal parents.

2. Second parent and step parent adoption-by the partner or spouse of a gay person- of children who are already in the care of that gay person.

3. The conception of children by gay people and their partners with the help of medical and scientific technology

Please link to supporting documentation for anything that you present as fact.

Take your time.

Simple answer, none of it is normal, which is the subject of the thread. Carry on.

That is just a stupid and lazy answer. I'll take it to mean that you are against all forms of parenting by gays but you can't actually defend that position. It's apparent that you don't give a shit about the kids at all and hate gays so much that you are willing to use the kids to punish them and in the process harm the children. You are no better than a garden variety child abuser.

And Tex, you might want to check out this thread. It's about Tex-ass! Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Carry on.

The thing about opinions, your're entitled to them with having to justify them to assholes. So just keep you pathetic loser ass in the NE where i'm sure you fit right in and I'll be happy here. BTW I don't play in badlands threads.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes! because two women can teach their son boy things and to be a good man and husband to his wife and two men can teach their daughter girl things and to be a good wife to her husband

........... you libs are so stupid its dangerous.

You're right, they can. The fact is that not a single study shows that a mother and a father are required. What all the studies show is that children do best in two parent households. Two parents, gender is immaterial.

bullshit. Studies all over proving one man/one woman is best.

Post them dude!! Otherwise a statement like that is nothing more than a pathetic appeal to ignorance.

‘Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier

What a fucking joke! Is that the best you have? First of all Lifesite news is a highly biased and partisan source:

The Campaign Life Coalition (often called Campaign Life) is a Canadian conservative Christian pro-life group.[1] It is based in Toronto, Ontario.[2] The organization has existed since the late 1970s, and it has long been active in political campaigns.

In addition to opposing abortion, Campaign Life also launched a vocal campaign against same-sex marriage in 2004-05.[9] Campaign Life Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More importantly, the author of the study is known to be a fraud and a snake oil salesman. He was kicked out of court in Michigan where the judge gave "no weight" to his testimony. In addition, his so called "research" was disavowed by his own university:


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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-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/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

 

[OKTexas]

More lies from the left, no where did he say "normal". Because that is physically impossible, normal is having both biological parents.

So a heterosexual couple adopting a child is not "normal"?

A heterosexual couple using a sperm donor or a surrogate because one partner is unable to have children is not "normal"

A single parent who re-marries and where the spouse adopts the child is not"normal"?

What the fuck is normal? It seems to me it is only "abnormal" if it involves gay people. Anything else is "normal" regardless of whether or not both parents are biological parents.

Are all children who do not have two biological parents unworthy of the security of having two married and legal parents , or is it only the children of gay people.? It's either "normal" or it is not" normal" for one or both parents to not be biological. Which is it and what the fuck does it matter?

All variate from the norm, your point? Made up relationships can't replace biological relationships. Some are decent substitutes, but none are capable of being identical.

So then you are saying that HETEROSEXUAL couples who cannot or do not have BIOLOGICAL children where BOTH are the BIOLOGICAL parents should not be treated the same-should not have the same rights- as HETEROSEXUALS who DO HAVE children in the NORMAL way?

OR.....are you saying that the HETEROSEXUAL couple who adopts child is a "decent substitute" but the gay couple who does is not?

What the fuck is YOUR point?

I didn't say that at all, but a hetro couple provides roll models from both genders, which is the better alternative in adoption. Remember we are making comparisons to a traditional family, with ties to both biological parents verses the alternatives.

In a country where half of all marriages end in divorce, there is no "traditional family" any more, and that is all on heteros.

Gays can't break what has already been destroyed.

So in other words you're saying half are normal, right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I see. Now you're changing your story. You realized got called on the biology thing and realized that it was stupid, so now it's about gender role models. Now all that you have to do is come up with some credible , scientific evidence that have opposite sex parents is necessary, or even provides an advantage to a child's social and emotional development.

While your at it , you can also explain where all of those opposite sex couples that are needed for all the children who are in the foster care system are going to come from. Lastly, try to explain why it's OK, as some believe, to deprive children who are already in the care of a gay person, the securityof second parent or step parent adoption by the partner of that fay person.

Sorry you lack the ability to actually comprehend what you read, maybe your should read this string again, then try again. I have been totally consistent.

Tell you what old sport. Why don't we take a step back. Why don't you do this to clarify your position in one comprehensive and coherent post-if you can. Clearly state your position on each of the following issues- for, against, or whatever, and give you exact reasons:

1. Agency adoption by gay couples and individuals of children who have no legal parents.

2. Second parent and step parent adoption-by the partner or spouse of a gay person- of children who are already in the care of that gay person.

3. The conception of children by gay people and their partners with the help of medical and scientific technology

Please link to supporting documentation for anything that you present as fact.

Take your time.

Simple answer, none of it is normal, which is the subject of the thread. Carry on.

That is just a stupid and lazy answer. I'll take it to mean that you are against all forms of parenting by gays but you can't actually defend that position. It's apparent that you don't give a shit about the kids at all and hate gays so much that you are willing to use the kids to punish them and in the process harm the children. You are no better than a garden variety child abuser.

And Tex, you might want to check out this thread. It's about Tex-ass! Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Carry on.

The thing about opinions, your're entitled to them with having to justify them to assholes. So just keep you pathetic loser ass in the NE where i'm sure you fit right in and I'll be happy here. BTW I don't play in badlands threads.

I'm done with you. You are intellectually challenged and morally repugnant. You have no interest in, indeed no ability to, engage in any level of rational discourse. You have proven that all you have is your bias and hatred, and no logical or factual argument to fall back on. You've wasted enough of my time You are truly pathetic.

 

[whitehall]

Why is it news to the left that republicans tolerate the lifestyle of homosexuals? Why can't homosexuals tolerate the lifestyle of devout Christians?

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry you lack the ability to actually comprehend what you read, maybe your should read this string again, then try again. I have been totally consistent.

Tell you what old sport. Why don't we take a step back. Why don't you do this to clarify your position in one comprehensive and coherent post-if you can. Clearly state your position on each of the following issues- for, against, or whatever, and give you exact reasons:

1. Agency adoption by gay couples and individuals of children who have no legal parents.

2. Second parent and step parent adoption-by the partner or spouse of a gay person- of children who are already in the care of that gay person.

3. The conception of children by gay people and their partners with the help of medical and scientific technology

Please link to supporting documentation for anything that you present as fact.

Take your time.

Simple answer, none of it is normal, which is the subject of the thread. Carry on.

That is just a stupid and lazy answer. I'll take it to mean that you are against all forms of parenting by gays but you can't actually defend that position. It's apparent that you don't give a shit about the kids at all and hate gays so much that you are willing to use the kids to punish them and in the process harm the children. You are no better than a garden variety child abuser.

And Tex, you might want to check out this thread. It's about Tex-ass! Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Carry on.

The thing about opinions, your're entitled to them with having to justify them to assholes. So just keep you pathetic loser ass in the NE where i'm sure you fit right in and I'll be happy here. BTW I don't play in badlands threads.

I'm done with you. You are intellectually challenged and morally repugnant. You have no interest in, indeed no ability to, engage in any level of rational discourse. You have proven that all you have is your bias and hatred, and no logical or factual argument to fall back on. You've wasted enough of my time You are truly pathetic.

Thank you, the thought is mutual.