Simple question re: homosexuality

reply to post by BO XIAN


I dont get this, I really dont.

You and your m8 Charles 1952 have no Qualms expressing your Strong belief in God and Religion.

Yet you 2 are the Most Vocal at preaching Hatred and Discrimination.

My Exposure to Religion was that it Taught Acceptance and Tolerance.

Dude, what happened to You ??

reply to post by BO XIAN


10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week." However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."

Much more myths debunked..can you bring them all into the gay marriage argument..go for it I am rooting for you..

I have begun to realize that those that fight against something so much usually are projecting their hatred onto a group of people..due to their own internal fight with themselves.

No more from me..I do not get anything from gay people getting married or not getting married..I just cannot stand ignorance..which made me throw in my two cents..

reply to post by captaintyinknots

You've said it yourself. You are trying to "preserve" your "heritage". You are WORRIED about losing it.

But no, it's got nothing to do with fear at all

I try to keep my car clean, too. Does that mean I'm WORRIED about it getting dirty?

I'm still not sure what you're looking for, OP. whatever it is, I don't have it but I'll keep looking.

reply to post by markosity1973

Dear markosity1973,

Thanks for commenting, you raise a particularly powerful point.

My discussion was based on the idea of gay marriage, and not how people are treated in their daily life. Comparing black-white marriage bans to same-sex marriage is a faulty analogy. If a black man marries a white woman, marriage isn't changed; it is still between one man and one woman.

Bans on inter-racial marriage were damaging to the idea of marriage, they kept men and women apart because of skin color. While gay marriage actually redefines marriage because it eliminates the very presence of a man and woman union.

Government already treats people differently because of the group they are a part of, non-citizens, underage, felons, those over 65, etc. It's common, and not necessarily reprehensible, to treat diferently situated people differently.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by LightOrange


I work hard to avoid posting things that are not true or mostly true. However, your insults are noted.

I'm skeptical that any solid research disagreeing with your biases would influence you in the least . . . nevertheless . . .

Here's some sources:

= = = =

www.ewtn.com...

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children
Part 1

. . .

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.
.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.
.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt.
. . .

= = = =

.

www.zenit.org...

.
Adoption by Homosexuals -- Is the Research for Real?
.
A Mixed Landscape, and Lots of Shaky Studies
.

. . .

Nonexistent proof
.
Two recent publications examined the evidence on how children fare when they are raised by two homosexuals. One was "No Basis: What the Studies Don´t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting," published by the Marriage Law Project and the Ethics and Public Policy Center in January 2001.
.

The authors, Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, experts in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 studies on homosexual parenting. These studies often have been used to "prove" that a child is not adversely affected when brought up by two homosexuals.
.

In a nutshell, the book concludes that this "proof" is nonexistent and that "the studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient."
.

All 49 studies were found to have at least one fatal flaw. Among the deficiencies were unclear hypotheses, missing or inadequate comparison groups, invalid measurements, non-random samples, samples too small to yield meaningful results, and missing or inadequate analysis. For example, 21 of the studies had no heterosexual control-group. [emphasis added]
.

The second publication, which came out last month, is by United Kingdom family expert Patricia Morgan. Her "Children as Trophies?: Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting" is published by the Christian Institute.
.

Morgan observes that many of the studies used to support same-sex parenting are "little more than anecdotal." Moreover, she contends, public bodies and research institutes are guilty of double standards by uncritically accepting material as evidence that would be rejected in other, less politically correct, fields.
[Emphasis added]

. . .

= = = =

.www.personal.psu.edu...
.
Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior
A Political Agenda Is Trumping Science, Says Rick Fitzgibbons
.

. . .

Numerous conflicts make homosexual behaviors abnormal, including rampant promiscuity, inability to maintain commitment, psychiatric disorders and medical illnesses with a shortened life span.
.

The sexual practices of homosexuals involve serious health risks and illness. Specifically, sodomy as a sexual behavior is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems.
.
. . .
Fitzgibbons: Two extensive studies appearing in the October 2000 issue of the American Medical Association's Archives of General Psychiatry confirm a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide, as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems.
.

One of the studies in the journal, by David M. Ferguson and his team, found that "gay, lesbian and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors."
.

The youth suffering from these disorders were four times as likely as their peers to suffer from major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer from multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

. . . .

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Dear Tw0Sides,

Sorry about my wordiness, it's one of my many flaws. (I also don't follow football, or drink much beer, or even eat bacon!)

You Basically believe that Gays are a sort of 2nd Class Citizen,and should not be afforded the same Freedoms we Cherish so greatly in this Country.

I don't think you've accurately stated my beliefs. I don't see gays as second class citizens, each is an incredibly valuable being with the right to dignity and respect. I also don't believe that the right to marry anybody who is willing is a cherished freedom in this country. (Not to mention the confusion between rights and freedoms.)

But thanks for that, You remind me again of the Hypocrisy of the Religious Zealots, and why I have such a Disdain for them.

I know "hypocrisy" is a commonly used word to express disapproval, but in this case I don't see how it applies.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Tw0Sides


NO hatred at all.

Disagreement does NOT EQUAL hatred.

Pretending that black = white; up = down; in = out; left = right; good = bad

is idiocy.

Claiming that calling reality by realistic labels = discrimination is grossly to deliberately obtuse and misleading to the max.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973

 

Dear markosity1973,

Thanks for commenting, you raise a particularly powerful point.

My discussion was based on the idea of gay marriage, and not how people are treated in their daily life. Comparing black-white marriage bans to same-sex marriage is a faulty analogy. If a black man marries a white woman, marriage isn't changed; it is still between one man and one woman.

Bans on inter-racial marriage were damaging to the idea of marriage, they kept men and women apart because of skin color. While gay marriage actually redefines marriage because it eliminates the very presence of a man and woman union.

Government already treats people differently because of the group they are a part of, non-citizens, underage, felons, those over 65, etc. It's common, and not necessarily reprehensible, to treat diferently situated people differently.

With respect,
Charles1952

Except for when it comes to marriage; where everyone is allowed to marry except gay people. Your argument was that it's for the production of children, but two people over 65 can legally marry; they absolutely cannot produce children. Your reasoning is baseless.

There's a reason that America is the only developed country that doesn't allow gay marriage: bipartisan brainwashing. It's amazing how Americans are still fighting over this obvious non-issue in 2013. The "deep south" really needs to grow up and shut off Faux News. It's toxic.

Originally posted by charles1952

Dear Tw0Sides,

I know "hypocrisy" is a commonly used word to express disapproval, but in this case I don't see how it applies.

Scroll up to the Top of this Page.
You'll see why "hypocrisy" most certainly Applies "in this case".

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Claiming that calling reality by realistic labels = discrimination is grossly to deliberately obtuse and misleading to the max.

Ok, last attempt, not Ducking Out, work in 6 hours.

Lets say Jesus came to Town, and Held a Big Fish Fry.

Do you think he would Honestly Distinquish between who should be able to Live in Love in the Ultimate Union??

I mean , he said he died for ALL our Sins.

He didnt say, He died for ALL our sins, except Gays!!

reply to post by BO XIAN

Patricia Morgan. Her "Children as Trophies?: Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting" is published by the Christian Institute.

says Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association.

Yup. Just as expected. I like the "facts" they come up with in your ridiculous article. 50% of gay men will contract HIV before the age of 50? Gay men are more prone to physical abuse? Blatant Fallacies. Things that people want to be true to help push their own agenda. Nothing in any of these articles is sourced properly and all the numbers are just prefectly well-rounded and obviously made up on the spot. Probably the worst thing I've seen yet trying to be passed off as fact on ATS.

Stop.

Stop reading politically biased sites and accepting this filth as fact. This is all nonsense. Your first tip off shouldve been the websites looking like they were designed by 6-y-ear-olds.

You're embarassing yourself.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by deadeyedick
I very much agree with seabag and i disagree with the op somewhat because i have found the spiritual reason for all the problems with it. GOD created homosexuality as a form of punishment from past life going against him. I have been having visions of my pre life and i seen that on a spiritual level all soul mates were male and female but we are at the culmination of our human existence before GOD'S return and most vessels were already taken. So many soul mates went into same sex vessels. That does not take away from the fact that is is a form of punishment that many have to suffer and no pride should be taken in that but what do i know.

The scary part you refer to has been programmed into some humans just like the other has been.

edit on 27-5-2013 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

Look guy, i am NOT being punished for anything, and since i'm 'Bi-sexual' am i being half punished? or is my "'Choice"" the wrong one?, god did not create me, nor 'Gay' as a punishment, and since i don't believe in god how does that work?

i have tons of Pride, i feel sad for anyone who has not the open mind to accept everything in life

The awareness of punishment is usually only known spiritually and only you can determine inside of you if you are being punished. The best thing to do is to find Jesus.

Would Jesus help me be a better Drag Queen?

maybe it would help to find *insert the god/goddess*

reply to post by BO XIAN


Continued research etc. & related links:

= = = =

www.frc.org...
.

THE TOP TEN HARMS OF SAME-SEX 'MARRIAGE'
By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
.

. . .
Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

If same-sex marriage were legalized, all employers, public and private, large or small, would be required to offer spousal benefits to homosexual couples. You, as a taxpayer, consumer, or small business owner, would be forced to bear the expense of subsidizing homosexual relationships-including their higher health care costs.
.

Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.
.

A lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use "a sex toy" to have intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, "Give me a break. It's legal now." One father was jailed after protesting because his son-a kindergarten student-was given a book about same-sex couples.
. . .

Fewer people would marry.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriages" began in May 2004, only 52% of same-sex couples who live together had even bothered to "marry" by the end of 2006. Among opposite-sex couples, the comparable figure is 91%. In the Netherlands, the figures are even lower, with only 12% of homosexual couples having entered legal civil "marriages." Giving the option of same-sex "marriage" would tell society that marriage in general is "optional," not normative, and fewer people would marry.
.
. . .
Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.

Among homosexual men, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected. One study in the Netherlands showed that homosexual men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. If these behaviors are incorporated into what society affirms as "marriage," then fidelity among heterosexuals would likely decline as well.
.
. . .

More children would grow up fatherless.

Most children who live with only one biological parent will live with their mothers, and lesbian couples are more likely to be raising children than homosexual male couples. Therefore, with same-sex "marriage," more children would suffer the specific negative consequences of fatherlessness, which include higher rates of youth incarceration among males and adolescent pregnancy among females. Research also shows negative outcomes for the children of sperm donors, who are used by some lesbian couples.
. . .

= = = =

www.frc.org...

COMMENTARY:

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.
. . .

= = = =

www.unh.edu...

THE EFFECTS OF LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTING ON CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT

In addition to the difficulties in identifying the number of homosexuals raising children, the number of variations in family composition further complicates identification. Although in 1992 approximately 5,000 -10,000 lesbians (a number assumed to be continuously increasing) had children through adoption or conception via donor insemination after declaring their homosexuality (Patterson 1992), the majority of children raised by same-sex couples were born into heterosexual relationships. . . . . However, this paper attempts to encompass the most common variations of family construction. The term ‘same-sex couples’ will refer to homosexual couples who have been the primary parents in the child's life.

To be continued

These reports, were they done by Gay individuals? i mean they seem to say they know a lot about the 'homosexual Community"

Multiple Partners are accepted within a 'Gay relationship" let me tell you from experiences it's not the 'Normality' as much as 'Straight Relationships'

i fail to comprehend why the 'Normal' label has to be utilized obsessively when dealing within anything other than 'Straight' or 'Christian' Etc

It's kind of funny that here in Australia our previous Prime Minister felt it was his duty to alter the marriage act to read, “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

Now why would he feel the need to change the act to make it clear what a marriage is?

Does this mean prior to this that marriage could be between two members of the same sex?

It seems the bigots are scrambling for ways to claim they are not bigots.

Shameful behaviour, to deny rights to some of the populace because of what gender they choose to live with, have sex with, and care for in the same way that those attracted to the opposite sex take for granted.

is anyone a constitutionalists here?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

to make a law that bans Gay marriage due to Religious reasons is unconstitutional

this should never be an issue of law or not, it;s discrimination of a person due to sexuality

you don't have to believe in it, but you shouldn't decide my fate

reply to post by LightOrange

Dear LightOrange,

I'm sorry that you see my post so negatively, it makes conversation very difficult. Let's see if I can do anything to fix the situation.

Obviously learning isn't your strong point seeing as you rolled in here with what I can assume are the same opinions you've had for years and still zero evidence to back them up.

I do like to learn, that's kind of the point of ATS. There are some opinions I've held for quite a while, but I am open to change if presented with a reason. I expect your response will show me my faulty opinions, offer better ones, and provide evidence.

Gay marriage . . . eliminates the traditional definition of marriage and replaces it with a new one.
So did the Christian definition of marriage

Good, we agree that gay marriage eliminates the traditional definition of marriage. How do you think marriage has traditionally been defined, say, over the last couple of millenia?

Instead of being a union centered on the welfare of children, male-female procreation, and the benefit to the public. "Marriage" will become something any two people who really like each other can do.

The incentives given to by the State to encourage the older purposes of marriage, will now be distributed to people who can claim to be BFFs.

A man and a woman do not have to spawn to enter marriage. There is no brooding prerequisite to enter this legal contract whatsoever.

You're absolutely right, but then again, no one has ever said they have to. (By the way, "spawn?" What an unpleasant and inaccurate use of the word.)

That is what makes your definition personal and unique.

Forgive me, but I wasn't defining marriage, I was explaining some of it's purposes. Purposes which I think are widely accepted. Do you think they are wrong?

The entire country does not have to subscribe to the same defintion of marriage, as one person's, or one religions, or one idea of marriage is not neccessarily correct; suggesting it is is strictly arrogant and, last time I checked, Christians were supposed to be humble.

No one is asking the whole country to believe one definition of marriage, I am simply suggesting that the government not throw out the old definition and replace it with a new one which doesn't seem to provide significant societal benefits.

Protected grounds. If we didn't have them, black people would still be using separate water fountains. It's not a big deal. If you want to make money off of people, then make money off of all people. If you want to make money of a select group of like-minded bigots, move to a country that practices apartheid. Your concern is not valid.

I hope you don't mind if I say you've dismissed my concern a little carelessly. I thought the difference between Blacks and gays was obvious. One discrimination was based on skin color, the other is based on actions and behavior.

Religious institutions should be paying taxes just like everyone else in the first place. Tell me what makes them so special that they shouldn't.

I think you've missed the point. They are punished for exercising their consciences and beliefs.

I've seen those facebook postings, and it's not that they are expressing traditional marriage values, it's that they're acting like jackasses and using extremely vulgar, extremely innappropriate language which represents the company that they work for very poorly.

Sometimes, maybe. But that doesn't explain Frank Turek:

As described in several recent columns by Mike Adams, I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and requested I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).

townhall.com...

It's funny, you just contradicted an earlier point of yours... you say people who own businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but then you say people who own businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It seems like the only people who are allowed to discriminate, in your opinion, are those with "traditional marriage values", and those without them are not allowed to discriminate against those with them.

Good point, let me deal with it in my next post.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by BO XIAN


Family research Council: Denied. Extreme Bias; not even wasting my time. Don't insult me.



This essay you posted lastly here I thought could actually be promising and help make your case I was impressed when reading it... until I checked the sources. Here's what the sources say:

The 80 participating families, all of whom had conceived children using the resources of a single sperm bank, included 55 families headed by lesbian and 25 families headed by heterosexual parents. Fifty families were headed by couples and 30 by single parents. Participating children averaged 7 years of age. Results showed that children were developing in normal fashion, and that their adjustment was unrelated to structural variables such as parental sexual orientation or the number of parents in the household. These results held true for teacher reports as well as for parent reports.

A total of 19 studies were used for the analysis and included both child and parent outcome measures addressing six areas. Analyses revealed statistically significant effect size differences between groups for one of the six outcomes: parent–child relationship. Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.

Participants included 44 adolescents parented by same-sex female couples and 44 adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. On both self-reported and peer-reported measures of relations with peers, adolescents were functioning well, and the quality of their peer relations was not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported higher quality peer relations and more friends in school and were rated as more central in their friendship networks.

A longitudinal study of 25 young adults from lesbian families and 21 raised by heterosexual single mothers revealed that those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well in adulthood in terms of psychological well-being and of family identity and relationships. The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings.

Honestly, THESE ARE YOUR SOURCES. I can't take another one of your posts seriously at all, this is ridiculous. You're debunking yourself for God's sakes.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Continued:

www.unh.edu...

THE EFFECTS OF LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTING ON CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT

--NOTE--this is a study which purports to support the contentions of the homosexual lobby . . .

It can be a contrast to the other articles.

. . .
There is still a great deal of research to be conducted exploring the ever-changing social perceptions of gay and lesbian parents. While it is clear that lesbian and gay parents do not have an effect on their children’s overall development, it is important to explore the indirect effects of being a member of a non-conventional family in the light of the ever-changing social perceptions of these non-conventional families. However; the body of research exploring the effects of lesbian and gay parents on their children’s development strongly indicates that, while there is clearly a need for more research, children are not at any developmental risk directly resulting from their membership to a non-conventional family.
.

= = =

www.focusonthefamily.com...
.
Same-Sex Parenting, Child Sexual Orientation and Sexual Experiences
.

These studies consistently show a markedly greater likelihood of children raised by same-sex parents to identify with and experience same-sex or bi-sexual contact than children raised in heterosexual homes.1
A study published in late 2011 by the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) reported that, "daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact" compared with their peers from heterosexual-parented homes. 2 Boys were not as likely to identify as homosexual as the girls, but more so than boys raised by heterosexual parents.
.

Girls from planned lesbian-mothered families were:
•Dramatically more likely to have used emergency contraception.
•Significantly less likely to have used other forms of contraception.
•More likely to identify as bisexual. 3
. . .

Stacey and Biblarz, 2001

The next major study was a review published in the prestigious American Sociological Review by a lead author strongly sympathetic with GLBT causes. Her team describes the outcomes from the two different family types as "striking": 64 percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex erotic relationships (in the past, now or future). Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported this.8

Likewise "girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste." Boys raised in such homes tended to be more sexually reticent. 9

. . .

= = = =

www.sodahead.com... ink=ibaf&q=research%20%2B%20homosexual%20couples%20%2B%20children%20%2B%20consequences%2C%20results
.
.

Gay adoption puts kids at high risk of bullying. Do children of loving Same Sex couples have a harder time than those who grow up in a loving traditional family ?

.

. . .
• Same-sex relationships are much more unstable and short-lived than heterosexual relationships.

• Even some researchers in favour of gay adoption admit that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual.

• Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children. One of the largest pro-gay studies found that children raised by homosexual couples had the worst outcomes in terms of education and social adjustment. Children raised by cohabiting couples were better, but those raised by married couples had the best outcomes.

• Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers.

• Pro-gay studies commonly ditch the most basic research methods:
– They fail to test any hypothesis or use a proper control group.
– Sample sizes are so small that no deductions can be made.
– One study which was headlined as “Gay men make better fathers” did not even have any children in the study but merely asked opinions.

Cohabiting couples have deliberately chosen to live in a relationship that gives them the complete freedom to leave that relationship. But children need to be raised within a stable, secure environment.
.
. . .

To be continued.

Originally posted by seabag

There is nothing subtle about being gay…you do know that, right?

How do you know that person is gay? You obviously live a very sheltered life. How do you know if a "normal" looking person is straight?

Your problem is not Christianity, it's your shallow world perception.

People who don't think for themselves will reflect the persona they consider to be the accepted norm, and anything that isn't is feared. The accepted "norm" in America for the last 60 years has been; Neo-Christian, right-wing authoritarian, partisan, and most of all ignorance. The sort of people who use LOL's a lot, because ignorance is bliss.

But you know what mate, the times they are a changin', and will continue to change regardless of opinions from the dark ages. Y'all learned to share a water fountain with a black man, it's time to stop discrimination against everyone. Maybe you should learn to look inwards more often.