Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Mr. Invisible · Apr 27, 2013

Mr.Nick said:
Isn't that the reasoning behind every riot?

I'd wish they would do this in California over prop 8, not because of gay marriage/civil unions but over the circumvention of the Tenth Amendment and the overall slap in the face to democracy.

I respond to the bolded with this:

Mr. Invisible said:
I find it interesting that people bring up popular opinion only when it coincides with their own viewpoint. No one ever does that when popular opinion is against them.

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

clownboy said:
Why in the world do you think that? How is it that they cannot be made equal? We're talking in a strictly legal sense here you understand that, right? You cannot successfully legislate social acceptance. Even if we could, that's a very dangerous path to follow.

The civil unions ship sailed when 20 states passed Constitutional bans on them. Can you name one state that has repealed such a ban in a good faith attempt to "compromise"? You are right about one thing...you cannot legislate social acceptance. But social acceptance does come as more people see it is safe to come out to their family and friends because of legislation that protects gays.

CriticalThought · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
They could be amended to do so. However, this has never been what the LGBT lobby has pushed for.

They want "marriage," and won't stand for anything less.

I can just about guarantee you that the issue wouldn't be anywhere near the ****storm it is today if homosexuals had simply used the former tactic. Again, the fact of the matter is that they won't use such non-confrontational means precisely because "equal rights" aren't what they're really after.

They want recognition and validation from society at large.

Bull! Do not tell me what I want. I did not pass 20some some Constitutional bans on civil unions. I did not pass laws in some states that made it so only "married" couples could adopt children. I did not craft it so the federal government does not recognize civil unions. That path was closed off by YOUR side and it is incredibly dishonest to pretend it was not. I would have been happy with civil unions if they had ever been feasible or equal.

zstep18 · Apr 27, 2013

Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It never will be

Sure it will be. It's only a matter of time before same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Mr.Nick said:
What the **** is this?

You ever hear of a dissenting paragraph or do you just number ****?

Thank God for our Godless progressive public schools - they'll just number dissent attributes to an individuals opinion - then laugh at the idiots that can type and come up with a cognitive argument.... So much for the ****ing English language.

You've nailed it. They've taught these children 'self esteem' and that's about it. This is a consequence of the leftist approach to educating children where their 'feelings' count more than knowledge. And of course it's difficult to convince any well educated person that leftism is good for an individual or the country, which is largely why they turn out these cookie cutter children who can never think for themselves.

Half of U.S. schools fail federal standards

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

chromium said:
So why not civil unions? It's more fun watching the crying about it, and see: 'colored' drinking fountains. France itself is a good example, since they had civil unions, but adoption rights are a huge part of why this was necessary.

Adoption is not an equal rights issue. There is very real concern over the question of whether homosexual households provide an emotionally and developmentally healthy environment for growing children.

There have been a wide variety of studies in recent years suggesting that children who are raised without role models of both genders tend to be predisposed to a wide variety of social and behavioral problems later in life.

Witherspoon Institute - Men Don't Mother

You cannot toss the last several million years of human evolution out the window just because it doesn't agree with your ideological views.

Frankly, how many gay couples actually want to adopt children anyway? I'd assume that they are something of a minority. In a group that only makes up 2-4% of any given population in the first place, that's saying quite a bit.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
There have been a wide variety of studies in recent years suggesting that children who are raised without role models of both genders tend to be predisposed to a wide variety of social and behavioral problems later in life.

The majority of studies have found no real difference between children raised by gay couples than those raised by straight couples.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Witherspoon Institute - Men Don't Mother

Oh please. The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that's been pointed out before for using flawed studies.

You cannot toss the last several million years of human evolution out the window just because it doesn't agree with your ideological views.

We're not.

Frankly, how many gay couples actually want to adopt children anyway? I'd assume that they are something of a minority.

I think Redress said it was 1/3 of Lesbian couples and 1/4 of gay couples

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
Adoption is not an equal rights issue. There is very real concern over the question of whether homosexual households provide an emotionally and developmentally healthy environment for growing children.

There have been a wide variety of studies in recent years suggesting that children who are raised without role models of both genders tend to be predisposed to a wide variety of social and behavioral problems later in life.

Witherspoon Institute - Men Don't Mother

You cannot toss the last several million years of human evolution out the window just because it doesn't agree with your ideological views.

Frankly, how many gay couples actually want to adopt children anyway? I'd assume that they are something of a minority. In a group that only makes up 2-4% of any given population in the first place, that's saying quite a bit.

While what you say is true there is also a great deal of indifference towards children that there has been in previous generations. Of course aborting them is the most obvious, linking them to women's rights, a career choice, a 'punishment', etc. but we also don't care much about their sexual differences as well, as you point out.

Many on the left seem inclined to create a single gender child and, from some appearances, are enjoying a bit of success. Other young people rebel at this notion. While this attitude towards the next generation might just be an irresponsible fashion of the day (like indifference to debt, etc.) we can hope that succeeding generations are able to discard this foolishness as quickly as they can.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
The majority of studies have found no real difference between children raised by gay couples than those raised by straight couples.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

These studies are jumping to political slanted conclusions based on a lack of available evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many homosexual couples raising children in the first place, and that any scientific research we do have dealing with the issue doesn't go back any further than a few decades at the utmost.

We really have absolutely no idea what kind of implications tolerating such a thing on a society wide scale might entail on a longterm basis.

What we do know, from extensive experience dealing with singleparent households, is that children raised in single gender heterosexual environments tend to exhibit some rather disturbing predispositions towards anti-social behavior later in life. I'm sorry, but a gay man is never going to be as effective at dealing with young girls as a woman would be, and a lesbian is never going to be able provide the same kind of role model for a young boy that a man would be able to.

You'd think this would be simple common sense... but apparently not. :roll:

Oh please. The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank

So what?

that's been pointed out before for using flawed studies.

According to whom? As I have just pointed out, the research supposedly supporting homosexual parenting is flawed as well.

We're not.

Have same sex couples ever been allowed to raise children anywhere in recorded human history?

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
These studies are jumping to political slanted conclusions based on a lack of available evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many homosexual couples raising children in the first place, and that any scientific research we do have dealing with the issue doesn't go back any further than a few decades at the utmost.

What a vague and completely baseless accusation. Mind actually pointing out where the flaws are, or are you just going to dodge it again?

We really have absolutely no idea what kind of implications tolerating such a thing on a society wide scale might entail on a longterm basis.

Why don't you let me in on your secret: What exactly is going to happen if we allow gays to marry and raise children? Don't be shy.

What we do know, from extensive experience dealing with singleparent households, is that children raised in single gender heterosexual environments tend to exhibit some rather disturbing predispositions towards anti-social behavior later in life.

The bolded aspect is the only true part. I've already shown that the gender of the parents is not the vital detail, only that there needs to be two, loving and stable parents.

Also, I love how you said single gender heterosexuals. Guess we shouldn't let them raise kids, eh?

I'm sorry, but a gay man is never going to be as effective at dealing with young girls as a woman would be, and a lesbian is never going to be able provide the same kind of role model for a young boy that a man would be able to.

Unless you've interviewed every gay man/lesbian, or at least a sizable portion of the population in relationship to straight heterosexuals concerning that relationship, then you have no basis to make that claim.

You'd think this would be simple common sense... but apparently not. :roll:

Gotta love the social conservative defense "It's just common sense." Such a unspecific answer, with no real counterpoint being made.

So what?

Using them to debate this is like if I used Media Matters to argue about Fox New's bias. It shrouds up the facts behind a fog of partisan rhetoric.

According to whom? As I have just pointed out, the research supposedly supporting homosexual parenting is flawed as well.

You haven't pointed out jack ****.

Have same sex couples ever been allowed to raise children anywhere in recorded human history?

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Try again.

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
The majority of studies have found no real difference between children raised by gay couples than those raised by straight couples.

It has been found that gay 'couples' can raise healthy normal children. This has been demonstrated in several studies.

Oh please. The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that's been pointed out before for using flawed studies.

Your ideology is preventing you from looking at the bigger picture. It is not enough to say it is 'conservative' and rest your case. You have to demonstrate what flaws there are, and you can easily do the research as they supply the links in that article.

We're not.

Yes, in fact that's being done where no score is being kept in games, games where girls are being treated like boys, games where anything potentially dangerous is outlawed. This results in a generation of far too many 'girlymen'.

I think Redress said it was 1/3 of Lesbian couples and 1/4 of gay couples

It's still a small number.

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
These studies are jumping to political slanted conclusions based on a lack of available evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many homosexual couples raising children in the first place, and that any scientific research we do have dealing with the issue doesn't go back any further than a few decades at the utmost.We really have absolutely no idea what kind of implications tolerating such a thing on a society wide scale might entail on a longterm basis.

The dangers of having children raised in same sex marriages would probably be their possible adherence to political correctness and other left wing foolishness. Could a 'real man' be raised in that environment? It would be a challenge.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Grant said:
It has been found that gay 'couples' can raise healthy normal children. This has been demonstrated in several studies.

Okay.

Your ideology is preventing you from looking at the bigger picture.

*Coughs* *Shudders* *Coughs*

Sorry, chocked on the irony there.

It is not enough to say it is 'conservative' and rest your case.

You have to demonstrate what flaws there are, and you can easily do the research as they supply the links in that article.

Except they didn't supply the links. The only ones they did argued that kids are worse off in single parent households, a point that I am not contesting. Once they get to the gay couple portion, all they link are some books.

Yes, in fact that's being done where no score is being kept in games, games where girls are being treated like boys, games where anything potentially dangerous is outlawed. This results in a generation of far too many 'girlymen'.

What a fascinating claim. Care to back that up?

It's still a small number.

And still infinitely preferable to them growing up in an orphanage.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
What a vague and completely baseless accusation. Mind actually pointing out where the flaws are, or are you just going to dodge it again?

Agan, lack of depth in the field where this particular area of study is concerned.

Openly homosexual households with children were virtually unheard of before the 1970s. They are still hardly common today.

The claim that we can have anywhere near enough data compiled to make any kind of definitive statement on the merits of homosexual parenting after such a short period (using such a limited sample) is completely laughable.

Why don't you let me in on your secret: What exactly is going to happen if we allow gays to marry and raise children? Don't be shy.

Trouble fitting in with one's peer group, feelings of alienation and inadequacy, possibly a certain degree of gender confusion, etca, etca...

The bolded aspect is the only true part. I've already shown that the gender of the parents is not the vital detail, only that there needs to be two, loving and stable parents.

You have shown nothing of the kind.

Also, I love how you said single gender heterosexuals. Guess we shouldn't let them raise kids, eh?

I wouldn't let them adopt, if that's what you mean.

Unless you've interviewed every gay man/lesbian, or at least a sizable portion of the population in relationship to straight heterosexuals concerning that relationship, then you have no basis to make that claim.

Nonsense. There are mountains of data to suggest that input from both genders is essential to parenting.

Women are naturally more inclined to nurture than men and tend to be far more attentive. Boys raised in fatherless households often grow up predisposed to behavioral problems.

Furthermore, there are lot of conditions specific to the development of each gender that an opposite gender homosexual parent would have no experience with.

What would a gay man know about periods? What would a lesbian know about wet dreams?

Gotta love the social conservative defense "It's just common sense." Such a unspecific answer, with no real counterpoint being made.

Again, because the last several million years of evolutionary history make no difference what-so-ever, right? :roll:

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Try again.

Bull****. If you want to suggest that tradition is wrong, you're going to have to provide some serious evidence to support that conclusion.

The pro-gay adoption lobby has done nothing of the kind.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Grant said:
While what you say is true there is also a great deal of indifference towards children that there has been in previous generations. Of course aborting them is the most obvious, linking them to women's rights, a career choice, a 'punishment', etc. but we also don't care much about their sexual differences as well, as you point out.

Many on the left seem inclined to create a single gender child and, from some appearances, are enjoying a bit of success. Other young people rebel at this notion. While this attitude towards the next generation might just be an irresponsible fashion of the day (like indifference to debt, etc.) we can hope that succeeding generations are able to discard this foolishness as quickly as they can.

I actually view this as being the only redeeming aspect of the declining power and influence of Western Civilization.

We might very well be doomed to be supplanted and eventually overrun by the growing economic, military, and cultural powerhouses of the East. However, with any luck, when we eventually do wind up going the way of the Romans and Byzantines, the, quite frankly, cancerous socio-political views which have so marred our culture for the last century might very well die with us.

That, at least, is a comforting thought.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
Agan, lack of depth in the field where this particular area of study is concerned.

Openly homosexual households with children were virtually unheard of before the 1970s. They are still hardly common today.

The claim that we can have anywhere near enough data compiled to make any kind of definitive statement on the merits of homosexual parenting after such a short period (using such a limited sample) is completely laughable.

The 1970's were 40 years ago. From birth to adulthood is 18 years. Add another 10 and we still have an acceptable timeframe to conduct a longitudinal study.

Trouble fitting in with one's peer group, feelings of alienation and inadequacy, possibly a certain degree of gender confusion, etca, etca...

The 1980's well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings, as proven in this PDF: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/ca...onnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

You have shown nothing of the kind.

On the contrary. The 3 studies I originally linked proved my point.

I wouldn't let them adopt, if that's what you mean.

alright.

Nonsense. There are mountains of data to suggest that input from both genders is essential to parenting.

Incorrect. At best for your case, there should be a father figure and a mother figure. Not necessarily a mother and father, but figures that represents both

Furthermore, there are lot of conditions specific to the development of each gender that an opposite gender homosexual parent would have no experience with.

Nothing that they can't learn about.

What would a gay man know about periods? What would a lesbian know about wet dreams?

Nothing that they can't learn about.

Again, because the last several million years of evolutionary history make no difference what-so-ever, right? :roll:

Tell ya what, why don't you actually give me a specific reason and stop repeating it over and over again, hmm?

Bull****. If you want to suggest that tradition is wrong, you're going to have to provide some serious evidence to support that conclusion.

Are you ****ing serious? Holy ****, that's a hilariously stupid argument.

Did you even think that one out?

Here's an idea: For hundreds of years, it was "tradition' to read, write, whatever by candle light. Does that mean we should **** Edison and say "No Lightbulbs!"

Or how about slavery? For a thousand years humanity kept slaves. Should we keep slaves just because we've been doing it for so long?

Saying that we shouldn't change things just because we're not used to them is ****ing idiotic argument.

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
The 1970's were 40 years ago. From birth to adulthood is 18 years. Add another 10 and we still have an acceptable timeframe to conduct a longitudinal study.

One (again, incredibly tiny) generation does not a convincing case study for a whole society make.

The 1980's well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings, as proven in this PDF: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/ca...onnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

And what about the following?

Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be Homosexuals

Incorrect. At best for your case, there should be a father figure and a mother figure. Not necessarily a mother and father, but figures that represents both

And who better to be a mother or father figure than an actual mother or father? Why do boys raised in technically "singleparent" households with a mother and grandmother still tend to suffer from behavioral problems?

I know the socio-cultural Left is loathe to admit it, but the simple fact of the matter that there are objective differences between the genders. A man or woman might be able to fill a certain role if it is absolutely necessary, but they are never going to be able to do so as effectively as someone of the opposite gender would normally be able to do.

They would only ever be a rough approximation at best.

Nothing that they can't learn about.

Nothing that they can't learn about.

Why bother? Why "fix" what isn't broken?

There is absolutely no objective reason why homosexuals should need to raise children; particularly if it's just going to wind up being more trouble than it's worth in the longrun. Why put children at risk?

Are you ****ing serious? Holy ****, that's a hilariously stupid argument.

Did you even think that one out?

Here's an idea: For hundreds of years, it was "tradition' to read, write, whatever by candle light. Does that mean we should **** Edison and say "No Lightbulbs!"

Or how about slavery? For a thousand years humanity kept slaves. Should we keep slaves just because we've been doing it for so long?

Saying that we shouldn't change things just because we're not used to them is ****ing idiotic argument.

The argument you have just put forward has been used to support failed ideologies ranging anywhere from eugenics to red communism.

The simple fact of the matter is that, if things have been done a certain way for thousands of years, there is likely a very good reason for it. If you want to change things, the burden of proof is going to be on you to demonstrate why your proposal is more workable than the already established system.

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
Adoption is not an equal rights issue. There is very real concern over the question of whether homosexual households provide an emotionally and developmentally healthy environment for growing children.

There have been a wide variety of studies in recent years suggesting that children who are raised without role models of both genders tend to be predisposed to a wide variety of social and behavioral problems later in life.

Witherspoon Institute - Men Don't Mother

You cannot toss the last several million years of human evolution out the window just because it doesn't agree with your ideological views.

Frankly, how many gay couples actually want to adopt children anyway? I'd assume that they are something of a minority. In a group that only makes up 2-4% of any given population in the first place, that's saying quite a bit.

the vast majority of studys and majority of child/youth/medical orgs have already said the best model is TWO parents period. All other things being equal two parents (aunt/older sister, uncle/mother, grandma/mother, dad/aunt, mother/mother, dad/dad etc etc)

two loving parents and thats the best, so sorry your are wrong and you are letting your biased show.
"several million years of evolution" :lamo

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
I actually view this as being the only redeeming aspect of the declining power and influence of Western Civilization.

We might very well be doomed to be supplanted and eventually overrun by the growing economic, military, and cultural powerhouses of the East. However, with any luck, when we eventually do wind up going the way of the Romans and Byzantines, the, quite frankly, cancerous socio-political views which have so marred our culture for the last century might very well die with us.

That, at least, is a comforting thought.

Yes, I can sympathize with the way America has become and it is doubtful that the next generation can turn it around. In fact the next generation will most likely bring their own cultures with them as there are fewer traditional American families raising their 1.2 children.

Americans, once a proud gathering of people from around the world, now actually look to the most ignorant on the planet as to how they should behave, and describe a terrorist who murdered Americans as a 'hottie'. I sent this to another poster but you may like what is said about American response to terror as well.The Collapsing of the American Skull | National Review Online

Grant · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
There is absolutely no objective reason why homosexuals should need to raise children;

That's an interesting point.

AGENT J · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
There is absolutely no objective reason why homosexuals should need to raise children; particularly if it's just going to wind up being more trouble than it's worth in the longrun. Why put children at risk?

Grant said:
That's an interesting point.

except the same could be said about heterosexual couples looking to adopt :shrug:
and his second point is simply not true, theres nothing that says children will be at any higher risk than children being rasied by heteros

so after both his points fail its not interesting at all unless of course the point is why should ANYBODY be allowed to adopt :shrug: lol

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
One (again, incredibly tiny) generation does not a convincing case study for a whole society make.

When the overall group size is 'incredibly tiny', yes, it does.

And what about the following?

Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be Homosexuals

Interesting. But, I fail to see how it supports your original point. How is that a bad thing?

And who better to be a mother or father figure than an actual mother or father?

In a perfect world...

Why do boys raised in technically "singleparent" households with a mother and grandmother still tend to suffer from behavioral problems?

How is it single parent if there's a mother?

but the simple fact of the matter that there are objective differences between the genders.

Holy **** Sherlock, are you serious?

A man or woman might be able to fill a certain role if it is absolutely necessary, but they are never going to be able to do so as effectively as someone of the opposite gender would normally be able to do.

That's entirely dependent on the individual. There are such things as a piss poor mother or father.

Why bother? Why "fix" what isn't broken?

It's not a fix, it's a helpful addition.

There is absolutely no objective reason why homosexuals should need to raise children;

There's a lot of things we don't need that we still do, because it's in our best interest.

particularly if it's just going to wind up being more trouble than it's worth in the longrun. Why put children at risk?

Accept it's not trouble, and it's not putting kids at risk.

The argument you have just put forward has been used to support failed ideologies ranging anywhere from eugenics to red communism.

And also succesful ideologies like the concept of individual liberty and popular sovereignty. Your point?

The simple fact of the matter is that, if things have been done a certain way for thousands of years, there is likely a very good reason for it.

Perhaps conditions prevented there from being another option or the ability to do something different had yet to be discovered.

If you want to change things, the burden of proof is going to be on you to demonstrate why your proposal is more workable than the already established system.

That's not what I'm arguing. I support SSM because it is a helpful addition to the situation, not because I'm looking to replace it.

Bronson · Apr 27, 2013

AGENT J said:
and you will always be free to have that OPINION, even once equal rights is granted

Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right

Gay Marriage is not real marriage

It never will be

Verthaine said:
That's your opinion.Thank you for sharing,but please understand if the rest of humanity prefers not to let you do our thinking for us.You're just not that important to the Universe that we automatically have to agree with you.

Not even remotely close to the rest of humanity. Gay Marriage is not real marriage. It serves no social or economic purpose to humanity.

But thank you for sharing

Gathomas88 · Apr 27, 2013

Jredbaron96 said:
Interesting. But, I fail to see how it supports your original point. How is that a bad thing?

You don't see how tossing a child into an environment that might possibly result in their being effectively "brainwashed" into a certain sexual orientation that they wouldn't have taken up otherwise is questionable?

Remember, these are adopted children we are talking about here. They wouldn't necessarily have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality inherited from the parents in question.

How is it single parent if there's a mother?

I was referring to households which included a mother and grandmother.

Holy **** Sherlock, are you serious?

You tell me. You're the one who's blatantly ignoring the perfectly obvious here.

That's entirely dependent on the individual. There are such things as a piss poor mother or father.

Simply put, no. The simple fact of the matter is that, on a generalized basis, a heterosexual male is always going to make for a better father figure than a lesbian female, and vice versa where gay men are concerned.

It's not a fix, it's a helpful addition.

It is an unncecessary and problematic "addition" to an institution which frankly needs no change that is being pursued in the interests of P.C. social vanity rather than any sense of rational concern.

There's a lot of things we don't need that we still do, because it's in our best interest.

Homosexuals raising children is in absolutely no one's "best interests." It is a far Left vanity project aimed primarily at subverting traditional values, nothing more.

Perhaps conditions prevented there from being another option or the ability to do something different had yet to be discovered.

And the burden of proof would still be on you to prove that the new way of doing things is any better.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 27, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
You don't see how tossing a child into an environment that might possibly result in their being effectively "brainwashed" into a certain sexual orientation that they wouldn't have taken up otherwise is questionable?

Remember, these are adopted children we are talking about here. They wouldn't necessarily have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality inherited from the parents in question.

At what point in the article did it say they were 'brainwashed?"

Secondly, we don't really know the cause of homosexuality, so neither of us can make a claim on how it might influence them versus genetics

I was referring to households which included a mother and grandmother.

Where's the date for this?

You tell me. You're the one who's blatantly ignoring the perfectly obvious here.

I am not ignoring anything.

Simply put, no. The simple fact of the matter is that, on a generalized basis, a heterosexual male is always going to make for a better father figure than a lesbian female, and vice versa where gay men are concerned.

What do you mean, no? That there aren't piss poor mothers/fathers, or that it doesn't depend on the individual?

It is an unncecessary and problematic "addition" to an institution which frankly needs no change pursued in the interests of P.C. social vanity rather than rational concern.

It is neither unnecessary nor problematic. You're inventing problems.

No change? you just posted a link to an article that talked all about how kids in single parent households are worse off.

Homosexuals raising children is absolutely no one's "best interests."

Tell that to all the kids who are raised by a healthy and loving gay couple.

Tell it to this guy: Two Lesbians Raised a Baby and This Is What They Got - YouTube

It is a far Left vanity project aimed primarily at subverting traditional values, nothing more.

Finally, you draw out the traditional values card. I almost didn't think you would.

And the burden of proof would still be on you to prove that the new way of doing things is any better.

I haven't already proven that Gays can raise children quite fine in the first response to you.

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

CriticalThought

CriticalThought

zstep18

Grant

Gathomas88

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Grant

Gathomas88

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Grant

Grant

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Gathomas88

Gathomas88

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Gathomas88

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Grant

Grant

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Bronson

Gathomas88

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10