Gay Marriage

[EastUS1]

Child bearing can occur out side of marriage. I am not aware of a single legal argument presented to the courts which has had anything to do with children. Certainly not a argument hat has won a case.

Reasoned objection? Where? You should tell the lawyers. They need your help.

 
"Child bearing can occur out side of marriage." Really?..Wow!...Who knew? Perhaps you can quote us all some stats on the true benefits of that being the case...? Better yet; how 'bout some stats on even just the mental health of children raised by gay couples? You wouldn't much like some of those, but do make at least the effort to check into things, even if they threaten your prejudices.  I don't make the harsh reality of the world up to my liking, nor could any of us ever do so...whatever your personal arrogance might allow you to fantasize to the contrary.
 
"I am not aware of a single legal argument presented to the courts which has had anything to do with children." Sigh!...Maybe, just maybe you should attempt the giant leap into actual logic and thought needed to even attempt to envision what impacts societal health, instead of having your head unendingly shoved up lawyers' collective arses, and what sort of toxic BS they can always and dependably sell each other in courtrooms for money...?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/study-gay-parenting-draws-criticism/story?id=16528374
 
"People who reported that their mother or father had a same-sex relationship at some point were different than children raised by their biological, still-married parents in 25 of the study's 40 measures. And most of the time, they fared worse. The children of parents who at some point had a same-sex partner were more likely to be on welfare, have a history of depression, have less education and report a history of sexual abuse, the study found."
 
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
 
"To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive."
 
"There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/
 
"(CBS News) A new study that finds children of a gay or lesbian parent may be more likely to have social and emotional problems has sparked controversy on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate."
 
"Regnerus' analysis identified 175 now-adult children who said they were raised by a lesbian mother, along with 73 who said their father was in a same-sex relationship. Focusing on the larger sample, the study found respondents whose mother had a same-sex relationship fared worse on 24 of the 40 tested outcomes, compared with children of an intact heterosexual couple.
Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother."

 

[Ms Tree]

Again with the children. The civil act of marriage has nothing to do with children. This is a legal contract. Nothing more.

 

[EastUS1]

Again with the children. The civil act of marriage has nothing to do with children.

 
 
Good point...I suppose, and thanks for showing your true colors here. I mean really; who should ever at all concern themselves with the welfare of helpless children whenever some political agenda's in play?...? Clearly, not you.
 
"Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families. About half of children of an intact biological family said they were employed full-time, compared with 26 percent of those born to a lesbian mother."
 
"Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female"

 
It's obvious to all that your sort only want's what's truly "best" for society. "Again with the children"? Yeah, I mean really; who should care about kids, after all?...Words just fail me sometimes...

 

[Ms Tree]

[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Arguing that gays are bad parents (proven false) and therefore should be allowed to have children is like saying car accidents are bad and therefore there should be no cars.  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I thought the BS 'facts' you posted sounded familiar.  The 'study' you posted was conducted by a guy named Mark Regnerus.  He was given a grant of $785k by Mark George from National organization for marriage.  Do some research on him.  Not a big surprise.  [/SIZE]Mark Regnerus is known for his stance against marriage equality and homosexuals in general.  The Heritage foundation is a conservative think tank.   Is it any wonder that the study produced by a man who is against gays would come up with a study saying that gays are bad parents?  Why I bet if you got a KKK member to conduct a study on caucasians v non caucasians that the  study would conclude that caucasians were superior.  
 
Never mind that his 'study' faced no peer review and is negated by decades of studies that show his conclusions to be biased BS.  
 
Are you seriously linking the FRC?  Do you link a skin head site when referring to studies on Jews?  The FRC saying something negative about gays is like saying water is wet.  No chit Cpt Obvious. The FRC has slightly less credibility than MSNBC or FOX, and only slightly.
 
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/06/16/why-mark-regnerus-study-shouldnt-matter-even-if-it-were-the-most-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/
 
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/open-letter-to-university-of-texas-regarding-professor-mark-regneruss-alleged-unethical-anti-gay-study/civil-rights/2012/06/24/41977
 
http://mic.com/articles/83281/what-the-research-really-says-about-gay-parents-and-kids
 
 
Inter view with Mark Regnerus where he admits the following:

I had a feeling when we started this project that it would not survive the politics of, in my opinion, the peer review system at the National Institute of Health  – and it takes so long to get money from them, and there are revisions and revisions; I understand that works to the long-term benefit of science, but some scholars don’t feel like going that route
 

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/video/2012/06/14/interview-with-professor-mark-regnerus  
 
Again, stop reading Cliff's Notes and actually look for information out there.  Linking to BS like Regnerus is a joke.  The guy is a quack at best.  He also neglected to mention that he did work with NIH before in a different study.  Wonder why he could not do so now?  May be it is because the conclusion of his "study" was already a forgone conclusion.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

If society wants it and the people consent what right is it of the state to tell the people no?

Society does not want it.
 
That is why the gay marriage bans existed in the first place.
 
The majority supporting gay marriage is a nothing but a lie propagated by the left.
 
The gays seek to deny the people a vote because they know how it would turn out.
 
That is why they are trying to use the government to impose their will on the people.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

that no rational person could even begin to pretend otherwise now.

Look at who you are dealing with.
 

 Ah!...I see. Sigh! So ANY reasoned objections to your utter nonsense, especially those that don't immediately, agreeably and harmoniously resonate within the hollow chamber of your skull, MUST of course, represent "hate"?  

The old libtard standby.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Arguing that gays are bad parents (proven false) [/SIZE]

Who proved it false?
 
I can see how there would be massive amounts of information to base "studies" on when the first gay marriage in the United States was on November 18, 2003 for a group that approximates 4% of the population to which probably less than 10 percent are married. Not all of those have children. Let's assume 50%  do. 
 
So you are trying to sell significant studies were done on 0.002% of the population?
 
Does anyone else find this ludicrous?
 
Another fine example of a group with an agenda submitting manipulated studies as "proof". 

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Who proved it false?
 
I can see how there would be massive amounts of information to base "studies" on when the first gay marriage in the United States was on November 18, 2003 for a group that approximates 4% of the population to which probably less than 10 percent are married. Not all of those have children. Let's assume 50%  do. 
 
So you are trying to sell significant studies were done on 0.002% of the population?
 
Does anyone else find this ludicrous?
 
Another fine example of a group with an agenda submitting manipulated studies as "proof".

The post was about gays as parents, not married gay parents. Your inability to comprehend is what is "ludicrous". Hint; there have been homosexual parents around long before 2003. I am guessing that in your retraining effort, they failed to teach you how to do scholarly research of peer reviewed studies.

"Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

"Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."

"Whereas there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);

Whereas research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);"

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

"2013 study from Tufts University, Boston Medical Center and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health published in Pediatrics.

Abstract: Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that childrens well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members.

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup#sthash.IGwrOMSr.dpuf

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The post was about gays as parents, not married gay parents. Your inability to comprehend is what is "ludicrous". 

Excuse me, is the whole premise of the thread not "Gay Marriage"?
 

I am guessing that in your retraining effort, they failed to teach you how to do scholarly research of peer reviewed studies.

I work on computer networks for a living not research of peer reviewed studies. I have better things to do with my time than read someones fantasy propaganda. 
 

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. 

Superior...... OK. Whatever you say. You are just ate up with it. 
 
Suggestions are not proof.
 

There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). 

Right. It is suggested they are SUPERIOR..... LoL. You are like a running joke.
 

Whereas research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);"

Just like nature intended right? 
 
Gays have children through manipulation and miracles of science. Prove me wrong. There is NOTHING natural about gays raising children.
 

Abstract: Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. 

Abstract data?
 
I am sure you meant this definition
a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech.
 
but I will choose to apply this one
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
 
 
 
I guess you chose to ignore the information EastUS1 posted saying pretty much the exact opposite. I may not agree with what you stated but at least I read it and analyze it. Can you say the same about EastUS1's post?

 

[Ms Tree]

Society does not want it.
 
That is why the gay marriage bans existed in the first place.
 
The majority supporting gay marriage is a nothing but a lie propagated by the left.
 
The gays seek to deny the people a vote because they know how it would turn out.
 
That is why they are trying to use the government to impose their will on the people.

And that's why the COTUS was written the way it was. So that the majority cannot rule the minority. Majority of whites did not want to grant equal rights to blacks either. Tough cookies.

 

[Ms Tree]

Who proved it false?
 
I can see how there would be massive amounts of information to base "studies" on when the first gay marriage in the United States was on November 18, 2003 for a group that approximates 4% of the population to which probably less than 10 percent are married. Not all of those have children. Let's assume 50%  do. 
 
So you are trying to sell significant studies were done on 0.002% of the population?
 
Does anyone else find this ludicrous?
 
Another fine example of a group with an agenda submitting manipulated studies as "proof".

But the 'studies' that East posted is good sound science? You are aware that there are gay people in other countries and that gay couples have been adopting for quite some time a single parents.

You need to get out more.

 

[Dog Wonder]

You need to get out more.

He needs to make friends some where.

 

[Ms Tree]

Excuse me, is the whole premise of the thread not "Gay Marriage"?
 

I work on computer networks for a living not research of peer reviewed studies. I have better things to do with my time than read someones fantasy propaganda. 
 

Superior...... OK. Whatever you say. You are just ate up with it. 
 
Suggestions are not proof.
 

Right. It is suggested they are SUPERIOR..... LoL. You are like a running joke.
 

Just like nature intended right? 
 
Gays have children through manipulation and miracles of science. Prove me wrong. There is NOTHING natural about gays raising children.
 

Abstract data?
 
I am sure you meant this definition
a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech.[/size]
 
but I will choose to apply this one[/size]
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.[/size]
 
 
 
I guess you chose to ignore the information EastUS1 posted saying pretty much the exact opposite. I may not agree with what you stated but at least I read it and analyze it. Can you say the same about EastUS1's post?

East brought child rearing into the equation. Keep up.

If you are not going to read the studies then shut up and don't make stupid comments that are unsupported.

Suggestion does not mean what you think it does.

The info that East posted is non peer reviewed, conducted by a person who has stated he is against gays and supported by a group who hates gays. The study is a joke and even by the authors own admission is not up to.scientific standards.

Ah. So the truth comes out. You read studies you agree with but ignore the ones you dont. Who would have thought you did that?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I work on computer networks for a living not research of peer reviewed studies. I have better things to do with my time than read someones fantasy propaganda. 
 

Yet you come here and post things as if you are knowledgable about the subject.

Maybe you should take some time and do some research on these topics before continuing to make a fool of yourself.

I would hardly call the APA's body of research "fantasy propaganda".

"The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world's largest association of psychologists, with nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members." http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx

Improving ones self through reading and studying is something many people do in their time away from work. You have made it clear through your postings on this forum that you do not do anything in your off time other than play fantasy pilot or car driver. Put down your joystick and go to a library sometime and peruse the stacks (try starting around the 306... area). It may help you break out of your little box.

I did read the study the EastUS posted. I read it when I came out. It was largely panned due to the lack of a peer review.

At least EastUS does have the ability to clearly read and write. He is certainly at a much higher level of intellegence than you will ever be. I don't agree with him on much, but I do respect his ability to communicate his views without having to resort to coloring and pictures.

Superior...... OK. Whatever you say. You are just ate up with it. 

You once again demonstrate your lack of comprehension.

It was a large body of research and study that came to the conclusions. Not "whatever you say".

Suggestions are not proof.

I guess you have never heard of the term "research data suggests" ....

If you ever have to write a research paper in APA format, you may begin to understand.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Ah. So the truth comes out. You read studies you agree with but ignore the ones you dont. Who would have thought you did that?

Nice try. That is you and your peers not me. As I recall I stated I read and analyzed Glenn's post you simpleton. 

I guess you chose to ignore the information EastUS1 posted saying pretty much the exact opposite. I may not agree with what you stated but at least I read it and analyze it. Can you say the same about EastUS1's post?

 
Typical libtard tactic, try to accuse someone of something you and your peers are doing.