'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

^^^^ This.

I see that all the time around here. Nicely summed up.

 

This has been going on for years with this guy. It's useless to try to get anywhere with him. He'll post the same clap trap hundreds of times and is impervious to any facts or logic that anyone throws back at him. Good luck!

 

Nothing in your data contradicts a thing Ive said.

 

Youll need some facts or logic that actually contradicts anything Ive said. Hell, youll have to first string together a few words to actually state what it is you disagree with.

 

Actually my position on gay marriage was formulated in 1989 in law school long before my brother divorced. AND he didn't lose custody. But what ever it takes you to respond to my posts without actually addressing the content of my post. That's what you do here.

 

I have gay family and friends who have or are raising kids so I already knew this but I'm never surprised by anti-gay people. They're the same as every other bigot.

The good news is that bigots are a dying breed...there is very much an age criteria. If you take a look at younger people, their whole attitude about these issues is very progressive. Bigots are a dying breed. You simply can't hold back human progress...humans will evolve.

Bigots don't do well in the job market either...most companies aren't tolerating this crap...so they either have to shut up at work or work blue collar factory jobs.

 

I said "PRIMARY basis" not your "sole basis".......and I accept the correction on "lost custody". But she does have primary custody...yes?

So, don't be dishonest and claim your views on gay rights, gay marriage, gay parenting are not HEAVILY influenced by the fact that your brother's ex-wife has the children...and she's an open lesbian living with her girlfriend.


BTW, "law school"? Are you a practicing attorney?

 

2014 poll.....61% of young REPUBLICANS ....supported gay marriage rights.

Homophobia is doomed to die...of natural causes.

 

Its not even a minor basis

 

Opposition to gay marriage is dying following 20 years of indoctrination to bring it about.

 

Just like opposition to inclusion of black people. Most of the time indoctrination isn't a bad thing.

We indoctrinate children not to do drugs, to peruse higher education, not to be thieves, and many other things. Indoctrination is how societies function.

You can indoctrinate bad things. But not viewing homosexuals as immoral isn't bad unless you can prove it without using your opinion.

 

All sexual moralities are based upon opinion. Just don't see removing sexual moralities from the masses to be a proper role of government.

 

******************************************************************

"Sexual morality is opinion, I Just don't see defining and pontificating sexual morality, to be a proper role for government."

fixed it, lol

 

I clarified.

What I am saying is that it was dishonest for CNN to post a photo of two gay men in a fictional TV relationship raising a daughter and entitling it that the study was about gay compared to straight couples. It was not. It was comparing lesbian couples to straight couples. Since NO gay men were involved in the study posting a picture of men and implying the study was about gays - rather than lesbians - was outright false and deceptive.

The only comment made about gay couples is that so few are raising children that they could not find enough to include in their study.

Lesbians can birth children and gay men cannot. Additionally, many gay women previously had children in a heterosexual marriage or relationship. In addition, women more often get the primary custody of children in divorce. As a result, far more lesbian couples will be raising children than will be gay men.

I am saying what the article said about the study, which is not the same as the title and photo CNN used.

 

They aren't removing morality. They are promoting community which is a purpose.

 

Today's facts are tomorrows errors when it comes to science and studies. Generally, "studies" are done to reach a pre-determined conclusion, which is easy enough to do. These same organizations were reaching opposite conclusions a few decades ago. And in the future will reach still different conclusions.

I have a married lesbian daughter who was a superstar in science, particularly for a protocol study she did. However, she largely abandoned any future in science because it is so corrupt, so dishonest and so for-hire in results that basically it would more be a matter of becoming an economic whore selling her reputation than doing actual research.

The "study" says no more or less than it does.Evaluating parenting and children on questionaires and simple raw selected measures is largely so much nonsense.

If you want to interprete my messages as anti-gay because I don't worship every word from anyone posting or saying anything of any kind pro-gay in their view, go for it. You only prove my point that studies are so colored with desired outcomes and goals that you are posting piles of material that is 100% irrelevant to the study entirely. The study did not in any matter consider or examine parenting by male gay couples.

I do understand many believe that gender no longer even exists as a biological matter, but is only a psychological frame of mind. However, being pregnant and birthing a child isn't a psychological event. Does that factor in regarding parenting? The study does not go into that since it did not involve gay men. To the extent you want to rage that it should have, you can look up that university and send your material to them condemning them for not declaring male gay couples are as good as straight parents in their study conclusion. Your complaint is with them, not me.

Besides, since you expect me to limit my thinking to their study, then you have to do the same. Their study was not about gay couple parenting, whether you like that or not.

 

This is not an irrelevancy:

"The current study only looked at lesbian households, because when households were finally matched and controlled for continuous relationships, there were too few male same-sex households."

Is that because so few male couples raise children? Or that male couples raising a child tend to not hold together as "continuous relationships." That was not clarified. IF male couples tend to be short term and unstable by comparison to straight couples, that COULD be a negative in contrast. But that is only a "could."

 

The shortcoming I see it that they only looked at families that had stayed together since the birth of the child. Ruling out all the families with problems that did not. Not even a representative sample of gay couples with children if you rule out all those couples with problems.

 

Of course they are. They want sexual morality reduced to a question of consent. Any other standards of sexual morality is opposed.

 

Wonder what predetermined conclusion about lesbian parents this researcher was hoping to reach.

 

No, they seek to redefine morality within a narrow specific definition and reclassify any relations outside these narrow boundaries as immoral behavior.

 

Only in your world of alternate reality.

"Oral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education. The only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity is comprehensive sex education. Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum and those opposed to homosexuality are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create" NEA spokeswoman Diane Schneider.

 

No they aren't.

 

You are focusing solely on this one study which may be flawed, and the apparent fact that CNN used a fictitious male couple in reporting on it. However, did you read the studies that I posted? There is plenty of data on gay fathers and same sex male parents. Many of those studies include gay men Here is just one example that you apparently missed or did not bother to look at:

This is an interesting one that is exclusively about gay men, albeit in partnership with lesbians:

Others conclude that the genders of the parents, whether male/female , male/male, or female/female is just not important:

You can find all of these by following the link that I provided.

You are trying to say that studies are imperfect and that over time a different result may be reached. Fine, but may change over time or the conclusions will hold over time. And, you do not know that those conducting the studies started with a predetermined conclusion and worked backwards. What do we do in the meantime? Discourage or even prevent gays from being parents, and how would you do that? To be honest, I’m not clear on what your position on parenting by gays and same sex couples is. Perhaps you can elucidate that.

I’m not trying to paint you as anti-gay, but if you are saying that they should be in any way discouraged or prohibited from parenting – then you are painting yourself as anti-gay. It does appear that you want to raise questions about the suitability of gay people, especially gay men to be in the role of parents, although many are parents or parent figures and it matters little how they came to be in that role.

While this does not differentiate between gay men and lesbians, these numbers are impressive:

In addition, adoption by same sex couples now legal in all 50 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades. It is nothing new and the numbers are clearly sufficient.

 

You want to question the validity of studies that show that same sex parenting is just as good as "traditional" parenting but you might want to take a look at this:

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. This guy was kicked out of court in Michigan. 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!