Children will win the fight for same sex marriage and adoption by gays!

Wrong, the majority of Americans collectively either don't care or support SSM. YOUR side is the one in the minority. Enjoy SSM being legal.

 

Lol, no. Perversion is of course subjective. What you find perverted I don't. What old people find perverted young people don't. Etc.

Perversion is subjective. Which is why certain things aren't considered perverted any longer.

This is a contradiction.
.

What you personally accept is meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope.......http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

- - - Updated - - -

One couple is closely related the other is not. Major difference. And entirely separate and irrelevant to same sex marriage.

 

Gee....are you the forum owner? Sounds like. And I sure wouldn't want to offend you by not posting according to your wishes. Honest.

May I make a suggestion? Hold your breath for me to care what you think about how I post or about my comments. Mkay?

- - - Updated - - -

Well...clear to some or most logical adults.... is never quite obvious to others (lefties)...lol.

 

Drama queens, lol.

 

Govt should not be involved in marriage at all. They push and lobby til they get the right and no one can stop it. I've accepted that reality, and don't really even care anyway. What I object to is the viciousness and vengeance. I'm talking about stuff like the well known tactic of putting someone out of business for declining patronage (the wedding cake, the pizzeria gal who expressed her opinion, etc), or someone losing their job and/or career for giving an opinion against them.

You want hate speech crime to negate your first amendment right? The gay mafia is the people who will tear that right away. For you. Not them. Special rights for special people. Goodbye equality under the law.

 

L M A O!

 

Actually I started this thread and I did so because a have a serious and professional interest in the well being of children. My intention was to promote a logical and rational discussion about how children are harmed when their gay parents are discriminated. So when someone comes along and derails that discussing with references to "perversion" I do indeed get offended.

I don't care how you think. I care about how you behave, here and in the real world towards others.




[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

So, because you started the thread here, you think that you can control the comments that disagree with your stance within the thread...? I haven't posted here for a while, but unless things have drastically changed in my absence, I doubt that you can dictate what someone posts within your thread. It's called debate and discussion. We aren't supposed to always agree, since that would be pretty boring.

 

No we are not supposed to always agree. That would not be any fun, now would it? The fact is that you have not taken a position on the topic at all. All that you did was to drop snarky one liners about perversion and what ever.

By all means "debate and discuss"

 

Baloney. I haven't harmed or bothered any homosexuals, so my behavior is not an issue. You care how we think. You want us to go along with the PC view. Well, I won't and you can't make me.

If you really care about children, don't advocate for them to be owned by homos. Look at Rosie's kids....how stable has their life been through her numerous relationships and break ups?

 

Probably as stable Charlie Sheens children.

I can pick outrageous outliers too.

 

Well....since gay people haven't been legally allowed to marry for that long in the USA, we'll have to wait a few for stats on just how those marriages last vs. heterosexual ones re: providing that stable and nurturing environment for raising kids, won't we. But I can cite one instance that I know of personally. One of my step-daughters decided one day that she was gay and hooked up with a female partner. After switching partners once in several years, she settled upon another female whom she decided to have a child with via artificial insemination. Well the child is about three now and yes, they are broken up. The child will now (I guess) be raised by a single parent...ie my step-daughter.

So much for that stable, nurturing environment.

 

And I have a friend who was beaten for 10 years by his hetrosexual father while his mother did nothing to prevent it ... so ...?

 

Beaten for 10 years, huh? I presume that he died from his injuries...right?

 

I was not addressing you, but since we're here.......If you advocate the denial of rights to gay people you are harming them, and their children. You don't have to go along with anything. Just stay out of the way

Oh this is really funny!! In my first post to you which was extensive (#233) I thoroughly debunked the idea that gay people make bad parents. You did not even make an attempt at a rebuttal. Instead, you accused me of trolling you and said that I bore you. Obviously you have no interest in facts or logic. And here you are again just spewing bile and not actually debating the issue.

I resent your insinuation that I don't care about children. I worked in child welfare for 26 years and in fact placed children with gay foster an adoptive parents. I know what kids need and I know, first hand what kind of parents gay and lesbian people make. And, you totally ignore the information that I provided about the number of children in the care of gays and lesbians. In addition, you had nothing to say about the large body of peer reviewed data that shows that gay parents are as good as anybody else.

It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that you care about children while not willing to support the efforts of those parents, by eliminating all forms of discrimination.

It's apparent that you are not willing or able to make a good faith effort to actually deal with these issues. I'm not interested in Rosie's kids or any other anecdotal information. I know what I know and can prove it. I'll respond further if and when you show any interest in dealing with facts and logic. I'm not dealing with your inane equine excrement. I have better things to do.

 

It been long enough. Mass. was the first state to have same sex marriage and it's looking pretty good. It has actually been more than 10 years now.

You can save the anecdotal stories and try to present some real data instead . In addition, many states have been allowing adoption by gays long before marriage was even an issue. My state of New Jersey started allowing joint adoptions by gay couples in 1997. I worked in the adoption and child welfare field and I am here to tell you that it is working.

 

Ok. How about this? Data showing that homosexual relationships don't last nearly as long as heterosexual relationships. Which proves that such "environments" are not as stable for children as the left would have you believe.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Ooops!

 

You said you had me on ignore.

 

Oooop? Not so fast. I will most assuredly be responding in due course. I do however have a life beyond the blog.

 

Lol, family research council

 

Which appears to be comparing dating with marriage. I remember dating - nearly every such relationship I had back when I was single lasted one date. Nope, not the right person, try again. The longest one lasted about 3 months. My marriage, on the other hand, has lasted several decades.

 

Again this just shows the dishonesty of the FRC and why they are not taking seriously. They did a survey of homosexuals in relationships (not marriage) and then try to compare them to heterosexual marriages. Sorry that is about as dishonest as you can get as they literally compared apples to oranges.

If you're going to try and compare homosexual relationships, you compare them to heterosexual relationships, not marriage. Likewise, if you want to do a study on homosexual marriages you then compare them to heterosexual marriages. This is not what the FRC has done.

OOOPS is right that the FRC has proven yet again to be dishonest.

 

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 variable. It is interesting to note that the FRC data is from 2001 or earlier and that it was collected from all parts of the country, including states that were, and still are, hostile to gay relationships. In addition, there is certainly an issue of credibility here:

It would be impossible to address each data point in the FRC paper, but there is plenty of evidence to counter it as we will see below. First, a few other points:

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 -

I had previously posted similar data from Massachusetts and other individual states. Even if some degree of legitimacy could be assigned to the FRC study, much has changed since then. And consider this. 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 which neither the FRC, nor anyone else has done. 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? That would just be stupid. Oooops!


Additional Information:

 

Its cute how he gets so excited when he discovers a new strawman to play with.

 

There are two things that you need to learn pronto Dixon. 1) You not supposed to edit the post that your responding to and 2) It's not a strawman if it accurately represents the argument that you presented'

You have REPEATEDLY taken the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry.

A slight variation on that is that there is no need to allow gay people to marry because they do not procreate and will not have a child by accident outside of marriage

I know, you are going to deny that you ever said that or claim that you meant something else. Don't bother, we are on to you.

Now you are saying that procreation is irrelevant regarding the marriage of your imaginary "mother and grand mother down the street"

Is it possible that you don't see your hypocrisy?? Call you out on this sort of crap is not a strawman.