If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The American Academy of Pediatrics says gay couples should be allowed to marry to help ensure the health and well-being of their children, citing research confirming that such kids tend to turn out FABULOUS   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 168
    More: Cool, American Academy of Pediatrics, gay parents, couples  
•       •       •

2440 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2013 at 2:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-21 01:16:47 PM
This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP
 
2013-03-21 02:17:12 PM

scottydoesntknow: This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP


I think the APA and the social worker equivalent of them have been saying this for quite a few years now. But it's awesome that the AAP, the definitive source on pediatrics, is now saying it.

Of course, to theocratic conservative hardliners like the religious right, this doesn't mean much, since their 2000 year old book clearly had everything figured out before the advent of modern medicine.
 
2013-03-21 02:37:17 PM
I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?
 
2013-03-21 02:37:19 PM
www.insidefacebook.com
 
2013-03-21 02:39:41 PM
OK, but the next time there's a natural disaster, we know who to blame, don't we?

/derp
 
2013-03-21 02:40:36 PM
Because gay people are "fabulous" their kids will turn out that way too!  That's grade A humor right there!  Be careful, subby, or Dane Cook will steal that for his next bit.
 
2013-03-21 02:42:06 PM
0.tqn.com
 
2013-03-21 02:42:44 PM

KrustyKitten: I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?



Gay friend of mine and his partner adopted a boy when he was a child.
That boy is now a man, went to college, got married, and is about to raise a family of his own.
Otherwise, he would have spent his time bouncing between foster homes.
 
2013-03-21 02:43:15 PM
Would you take your infant daughter's temperature in her vagina?  No?  But there's nothing wrong with a gay dad taking his infant son's temperature in his rectum?  No?

Why are you just standing there with that piece of cake in your mouth.  Chew for christ's sake!
 
2013-03-21 02:44:26 PM
Wait a minute.  So married couples raise better kids?  That not what I heard from Women's Libbers at NOW.
/...fish without a bicycle.
 
2013-03-21 02:44:41 PM
So what they're saying should come as a surprise to no one: two parents raising a child are better than one doing it.
 
2013-03-21 02:47:03 PM

hardinparamedic: scottydoesntknow: This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP

I think the APA and the social worker equivalent of them have been saying this for quite a few years now. But it's awesome that the AAP, the definitive source on pediatrics, is now saying it.

Of course, to theocratic conservative hardliners like the religious right, this doesn't mean much, since their 2000 year old book clearly had everything figured out before the advent of modern medicine.


The part they quote against homosexuality is more like 3,000 years old, part of old Jewish law along with a shellfish ban. That's the part that their 2,000 year old book supposedly overturned as no longer applicable.

So not only is obeying the book wrong, they're not even doing that correctly.
 
2013-03-21 02:48:34 PM
Any "study" that says homosexuals don't make good parents is bullshiat.

Any study that says homosexuals make good parents is equally bullshiat
 
2013-03-21 02:50:46 PM

FLMountainMan: Because gay people are "fabulous" their kids will turn out that way too!  That's grade A humor right there!  Be careful, subby, or Dane Cook will steal that for his next bit.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 02:52:27 PM

doubled99: Any "study" that says homosexuals don't make good parents is bullshiat.

Any study that says homosexuals make good parents is equally bullshiat


People make good parents. Especially when they're not being persecuted for the most natural and loving thing in the world for them.
Correlation / causation yada, but there's still a strong likelihood not having criminal and biblical vendetta held on you at many levels of society would possibly encourage & allow a more stable home environment.
 
2013-03-21 02:53:54 PM

KrustyKitten: I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?


One who's allergic to horses?

/well done, docs!
 
2013-03-21 02:53:59 PM

doubled99: Any "study" that says homosexuals don't make good parents is bullshiat.

Any study that says homosexuals make good parents is equally bullshiat


I think it's more that a child will do better with two gay parents, in general, than one parent or no parent.
 
2013-03-21 02:55:24 PM
About damn time someone turned the "think of the children" argument around on the derp-a-lerpers. Stability is stability and doesn't give a damn about who you rub your naughty bits against. Nice job, AAP.
 
2013-03-21 02:55:44 PM

Maud Dib: KrustyKitten: I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?


Gay friend of mine and his partner adopted a boy when he was a child.
That boy is now a man, went to college, got married, and is about to raise a family of his own.
Otherwise, he would have spent his time bouncing between foster homes.


Damn, think of all the adventures he missed!  You can't make a best-selling memoir out of the path he walked.
 
2013-03-21 02:57:37 PM

hardinparamedic: scottydoesntknow: This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP

I think the APA and the social worker equivalent of them have been saying this for quite a few years now. But it's awesome that the AAP, the definitive source on pediatrics, is now saying it.

Of course, to theocratic conservative hardliners like the religious right, this doesn't mean much, since their 2000 year old book clearly had everything figured out before the advent of modern medicine.


No, they have more than a book.  They invented the American College of Pediatricians to oppose and confuse the AAP's gay family stance (and whatever other "liberal" positions they object to) by peddling junk science.
 
2013-03-21 02:59:44 PM
So when do I start boycotting physicians who are members of the AAP?

Maybe I'll ask Reverend Pat Robertson the next time I buy some his vitamins, shakes and ante-diluvian water.
 
2013-03-21 02:59:54 PM

spentmiles: Would you take your infant daughter's temperature in her vagina?  No?  But there's nothing wrong with a gay dad taking his infant son's temperature in his rectum?  No?

Why are you just standing there with that piece of cake in your mouth.  Chew for christ's sake!


stevie.eclexia.net
 
2013-03-21 03:00:21 PM

Warthog: FLMountainMan: Because gay people are "fabulous" their kids will turn out that way too!  That's grade A humor right there!  Be careful, subby, or Dane Cook will steal that for his next bit.

[i.imgur.com image 400x400]


Beat me to it.

/would have used a Hulka pic, though
//after all, he is the Big Toe
 
2013-03-21 03:03:51 PM
Keep in mind, though, that the people opposed to gay marriage "for the children" already think that biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, physicists, astronomers, most historians, NASA, the UN, the AP, the AMA, the APA, the WHOI, the NEA, APL, JAP, JABS, AAB, JIM, and Jim, my high school biology teacher are all a plot of to make kids reject God, so I don't think that it'll be mentally difficult for them to dismiss another organization with a 3-letter acronym for being part of the conspiracy.
 
2013-03-21 03:04:01 PM
I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.

I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?
 
2013-03-21 03:04:36 PM

Wade_Wilson: I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.

I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?


Wrong thread. I suck.
 
2013-03-21 03:04:49 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I think it's more that a child will do better with two gay parents, in general, than one parent or no parent.


Beyond that, they do better when, if one of those gay parents dies, the other parent isn't locked out of being able to care for them, manage survivors' benefits, et cetera because the state refuses to recognize them as a legally-legitimate parent.
 
2013-03-21 03:05:31 PM

Wade_Wilson: Wade_Wilson: I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.

I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?

Wrong thread. I suck.


No, no, I like it this way.
 
2013-03-21 03:05:47 PM

Wade_Wilson: I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.

I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?


"Dip it in Nutella" is that some kind of homophobic slur?
 
2013-03-21 03:06:04 PM
This is what is going to happen, at least in the case of my religious friend: "How do you know they're telling the truth? They probably don't even believe in God. It could be the Devil whispering in their ears".
Of course he's so far into the closet he visits Narnia at will, and is convinced being gay is a choice because "God doesn't make mistakes" and "The Bible says it's bad". Yeah, well, the Bible says a whole lot of repugnant nonsense. I've been tempted to find a list of all the silly shiat it says is wrong to show to him to shut him up. If any of you Farkers have one handy, do share.
 
2013-03-21 03:06:56 PM

Warthog: FLMountainMan: Because gay people are "fabulous" their kids will turn out that way too!  That's grade A humor right there!  Be careful, subby, or Dane Cook will steal that for his next bit.

[i.imgur.com image 400x400]


He's just too pissed and too stupid to come up with a better way to express his rage and fear at homosexuals.  Not to mention he's tired of being smacked down here on fark.
 
2013-03-21 03:08:40 PM

Maud Dib: Gay friend of mine and his partner adopted a boy when he was a child.
That boy is now a man, went to college, got married, and is about to raise a family of his own.
Otherwise, he would have spent his time bouncing between foster homes.


The flip side of that, I know a straight couple adopted a girl, gave her a good home, sent her to college, she is now a drug addict, has had her children taken away by DFACS, and she blames the couple who adopted her, because they did not know her biological mother was a drug addict and she would have been better off being raised by her "real" mother.
 
2013-03-21 03:10:28 PM

spentmiles: Would you take your infant daughter's temperature in her vagina?  No?  But there's nothing wrong with a gay dad taking his infant son's temperature in his rectum?  No?

Why are you just standing there with that piece of cake in your mouth.  Chew for christ's sake!


www.bestadsontv.com

Nailed it!
 
2013-03-21 03:10:46 PM
So being married should be mandatory in order to have kids, for health reasons. Seeing as health costs are shared by all of us, this should be federal law.
 
2013-03-21 03:16:01 PM
So two parents who love each other, love their children and provide a secure, nurturing environment for those children, produce happy, well-adjusted adults for society.

They needed a study to work for this out?  Most parents do their best whilst some are vile & useless and none are perfect; that applies equally across all demographics.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, class, wealth or any of those other daft barriers with which like to segregate people.  There are gay parents who are cr%p at parenting, just as there straight ones and vice versa - it's human nature.
 
2013-03-21 03:16:53 PM

ParagonComplex: I've been tempted to find a list of all the silly shiat it says is wrong to show to him to shut him up. If any of you Farkers have one handy, do share.


Deuteronomy says it's OK to kill a "rebellious" child. Leviticus forbids re-marrying a woman you divorced if she "knew" another man in the interim (as well as forbidding some US-legal but weird relationships like screwing your stepmom). Exodus makes it legal to kill an intruder in your home, but only if "the sun does not shine upon him" (i.e. you don't know who he is).

Off the top of my head. There are some things that happens that aren't punished, suggesting tacit approval - like the judge (in Judges) who promises god an offering of "the first thing I see in my return home" (he'd just won a major battle). Guy's daughter came out to meet him, so he had her sacrificed (he was sad about it, though).

// though in that last story, there is a very clear lesson: watch your damned mouth and don't let your mouth write checks your family can't cash
 
2013-03-21 03:17:31 PM
So..

s21.postimg.org

Is better than

images.fineartamerica.com
 
2013-03-21 03:18:00 PM

Dr Dreidel: Exodus makes it legal to kill an intruder who tunnels into your home,


FTFM. It's a weirdly-specific rule that has pages and pages of explanation in the Talmud.
 
2013-03-21 03:29:25 PM
The academy believes that a two-parent marriage is best equipped to provide that kind of environment.

Wait a minute. The lefties have been telling us that single parenthood can raise kids just as well as two-parent households. Why is the apparently white male dominated academy trying to perpetuate old stereotypes?
 
2013-03-21 03:29:36 PM

Baldrick's Cunning Plan: About damn time someone turned the "think of the children" argument around on the derp-a-lerpers. Stability is stability and doesn't give a damn about who you rub your naughty bits against. Nice job, AAP.

 
2013-03-21 03:31:59 PM
Dan Quayle was right.
 
2013-03-21 03:35:50 PM
It's really about the couple's commitment to each other and the family. Whether or not the parents are legally married wouldn't necessarily affect the child's health, unless the marriage somehow did affect the couple's sense of commitment.

Since there's no such thing as a gay shotgun wedding, any same-sex couple who has kids does so voluntarily, and has already put a lot more planning into it than, say, a heterosexual couple that forgot to use a condom. Married or not, the family should be pretty stable.
 
2013-03-21 03:39:57 PM
Haven't heterosexuals murdered millions of babies in this country by way of abortion?

I keep hearing this from the same people who tell us that heterosexuals are better parents.
 
2013-03-21 03:42:48 PM

jjorsett: The academy believes that a two-parent marriage is best equipped to provide that kind of environment.

Wait a minute. The lefties have been telling us that single parenthood can raise kids just as well as two-parent households. Why is the apparently white male dominated academy trying to perpetuate old stereotypes?


2 loving parents > 1 loving parent > getting your nuts stomped on by Truckasaurus > 2 asshole parents > 1 asshole parent
 
2013-03-21 03:44:25 PM

cyberspacedout: It's really about the couple's commitment to each other and the family. Whether or not the parents are legally married wouldn't necessarily affect the child's health, unless the marriage somehow did affect the couple's sense of commitment.

Since there's no such thing as a gay shotgun wedding, any same-sex couple who has kids does so voluntarily, and has already put a lot more planning into it than, say, a heterosexual couple that forgot to use a condom. Married or not, the family should be pretty stable.


If you've ever seen the hoops that couples, both gay and straight, need to jump through to adopt, it wouldn't ever surprise me that most adopted kids do better than their peers.
 
2013-03-21 03:44:47 PM
Rough Trade Parents are fun!
 
2013-03-21 03:49:37 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

The AAP neutered poor Cookie Monster

i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-21 04:01:53 PM

TheBigJerk: Warthog: FLMountainMan: Because gay people are "fabulous" their kids will turn out that way too!  That's grade A humor right there!  Be careful, subby, or Dane Cook will steal that for his next bit.

[i.imgur.com image 400x400]

He's just too pissed and too stupid to come up with a better way to express his rage and fear at homosexuals.  Not to mention he's tired of being smacked down here on fark.


Huh?  Are you talking to me?   I'm angry and fearful of homosexuals (which would make me self-loathing at times, BTW), so naturally I point out that it's a little demeaning to  a) perpetrate the right-wing canard that GHEY PARENTS RAISE GHEY BABIES OH NOES!!!! and that b) the whole "fabulous" thing is played out?

And have you ever "smacked me down"?  If the above post is demonstrative of your intellect and logic, I'd be really embarrassed if you did.

meanmutton: So what they're saying should come as a surprise to no one: two parents raising a child are better than one doing it.


In addition to the fact that if you are two gay people willing to put up with all the bullshiat of being two gay people trying to adopt, you are likely persistent, intelligent, and patient and will pass that along to your children.
 
2013-03-21 04:03:45 PM
Well at least they can't procreate.
 
2013-03-21 04:05:24 PM
So, two caregivers are better than one.

Call Captain Obvious...
 
2013-03-21 04:12:02 PM

MilesTeg: So being married should be mandatory in order to have kids, for health reasons. Seeing as health costs are shared by all of us, this should be federal law.


Mandatory?  No.  But in a country with condoms, birth control pills, spermicide, IUDs, abortion, and readily available adoption, it's a really stupid decision to have kids before marriage (regardless of who you marry).
 
2013-03-21 04:15:50 PM

hardinparamedic: scottydoesntknow: This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP

I think the APA and the social worker equivalent of them have been saying this for quite a few years now. But it's awesome that the AAP, the definitive source on pediatrics, is now saying it.

Of course, to theocratic conservative hardliners like the religious right, this doesn't mean much, since their 2000 year old book clearly had everything figured out before the advent of modern medicine.


I also like the fact that they wanted the information released so the Supreme court would have to review.

"The academy announced its position Thursday. Officials with the group said they wanted to make the academy's views known before two gay marriage cases are considered by the U.S. Supreme Court next week."

"We wanted that policy statement available for the justices to review," said Dr. Thomas McInerney, the academy's president and a pediatrician in Rochester, N.Y."


/This makes me smile
 
2013-03-21 04:16:29 PM
I believe Law and Order already covered this.
 
2013-03-21 04:18:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: ParagonComplex: I've been tempted to find a list of all the silly shiat it says is wrong to show to him to shut him up. If any of you Farkers have one handy, do share.

Deuteronomy says it's OK to kill a "rebellious" child. Leviticus forbids re-marrying a woman you divorced if she "knew" another man in the interim (as well as forbidding some US-legal but weird relationships like screwing your stepmom). Exodus makes it legal to kill an intruder in your home, but only if "the sun does not shine upon him" (i.e. you don't know who he is).

Off the top of my head. There are some things that happens that aren't punished, suggesting tacit approval - like the judge (in Judges) who promises god an offering of "the first thing I see in my return home" (he'd just won a major battle). Guy's daughter came out to meet him, so he had her sacrificed (he was sad about it, though).

// though in that last story, there is a very clear lesson: watch your damned mouth and don't let your mouth write checks your family can't cash


Obligatory

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
 
2013-03-21 04:22:34 PM
Bible pounders will refute reality to hold on to their pre-determined hatred.
 
2013-03-21 04:25:28 PM
Hey if two are better than one... how about 10 or 15. Heck 100 is a nice round number.
 
2013-03-21 04:28:19 PM
The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***
 
2013-03-21 04:33:28 PM

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***


Is this a new troll account?
 
2013-03-21 04:34:09 PM

Wade_Wilson: Wade_Wilson: I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.
I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?
Wrong thread. I suck.


It doesn't matter what kind of bacon you eat, I support your right to marry the partner of your choice.
 
2013-03-21 04:34:20 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I know you have studied these things extensively,


That letter has some problems. The intention is good and it makes a great point, but the specifics are...under-researched.

For example, "pigskin" is a colloquial term for a football, even though they haven't ever used porcine organs for American footballs (and certainly not anymore). Also, Exodus lays out the procedure for meting out capital punishment (2 witnesses, a trial, and it's the court that carries out the actual sentence, not a witness at the time of witnessing the crime) - in roughly the same section he cites.

Anyway, even the few things I cited are incompletely referenced - for example, the Talmud sets the bar for "rebellious kid" pretty damn high.

// anyway, the Bible uses the verb "to lie with" (mishkav) and not the usual sexual euphemism "to know" (lada'at), so the prohibition could easily refer to sleeping in the same bed, not sex
 
2013-03-21 04:35:14 PM

FLMountainMan: George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Is this a new troll account?


Mods gotta eat.
 
2013-03-21 04:35:49 PM

meat0918: So, two caregivers are better than one.

Call Captain Obvious...


You can't be a caregiver within a civil union?
 
2013-03-21 04:36:07 PM

FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?



No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?
 
2013-03-21 04:41:42 PM

George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?


Instead, he just parrots every other moan teabagger's list of imbecilic talking points
 
2013-03-21 04:44:23 PM

DrewCurtisJr: meat0918: So, two caregivers are better than one.

Call Captain Obvious...

You can't be a caregiver within a civil union?


We've tried "separate but equal".  Doesn't work.
 
2013-03-21 04:46:36 PM

gunga galunga: George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?

Instead, he just parrots every other moan teabagger's list of imbecilic talking points


It certainly does tie into taxing and spending. That and pretty much all problems in our society, but I do  stand with the Tea Party.
 
2013-03-21 04:46:44 PM

gunga galunga: George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?

Instead, he just parrots every other moan teabagger's list of imbecilic talking points


I did not know defending gay marriage is a teabagger's imbecilic talking point.
 
2013-03-21 04:48:29 PM

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***


The nuclear family has only existed since the 1950's, and even then there were still farked-up kids, farked-up parents, divorces, and everything else coming from nuclear families. Also, the name itself has negative connotations: "nuclear". Nuclear things are unstable and radioactive and very dangerous. Why did they want families to be unstable and radioactive and dangerous?

And if straight parents are unable or refuse to raise their own children, why is it so horrible to allow gay couples to raise them?
 
2013-03-21 04:53:12 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The nuclear family has only existed since the 1950's, and even then there were still farked-up kids, farked-up parents, divorces, and everything else coming from nuclear families. Also, the name itself has negative connotations: "nuclear". Nuclear things are unstable and radioactive and very dangerous. Why did they want families to be unstable and radioactive and dangerous?

And if straight parents are unable or refuse to raise their own children, why is it so horrible to allow gay couples to raise them?


Defined in the 50's

Inability and refusal are the problems to tackle, not cover for.
 
2013-03-21 04:53:48 PM

George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?



media.comicvine.com
 
2013-03-21 04:55:23 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


That part gets me every time.
 
2013-03-21 04:58:44 PM

George Walker Bush: Keizer_Ghidorah: The nuclear family has only existed since the 1950's, and even then there were still farked-up kids, farked-up parents, divorces, and everything else coming from nuclear families. Also, the name itself has negative connotations: "nuclear". Nuclear things are unstable and radioactive and very dangerous. Why did they want families to be unstable and radioactive and dangerous?

And if straight parents are unable or refuse to raise their own children, why is it so horrible to allow gay couples to raise them?

Defined in the 50's

Inability and refusal are the problems to tackle, not cover for.


There's no doubt that people should be encouraged to raise their own children.  However, many people can't, and no amount of counseling, money, or time is going to change that.

If two people want to take a stab at raising that child instead, where is the harm to society?  It's hard to believe an apparent conservative is objecting to something that would reduce the amount of public assistance doled out.
 
2013-03-21 04:59:52 PM

FLMountainMan: gunga galunga: George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?

Instead, he just parrots every other moan teabagger's list of imbecilic talking points

I did not know defending gay marriage is a teabagger's imbecilic talking point.


I was responding to his post. Not yours.
 
2013-03-21 05:02:48 PM

gunga galunga: FLMountainMan: gunga galunga: George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: Is this a new troll account?


No, it's somebody that doesn't parrot your stupid farking agenda. Weird, huh?

Instead, he just parrots every other moan teabagger's list of imbecilic talking points

I did not know defending gay marriage is a teabagger's imbecilic talking point.

I was responding to his post. Not yours.


Gotcha, makes a lot more sense.  You and Big Jerk's post had me thinking I was in some bizarro world.
 
2013-03-21 05:03:41 PM

meatsack_01: Well at least they can't procreate.


No doubt.  They're too spent from procreating with the kid all day.
 
2013-03-21 05:06:52 PM

meat0918: We've tried "separate but equal".  Doesn't work.


Seem'd to be working pretty well, unless you think most of the gay parents raising kids in the "research" were legally married.
 
2013-03-21 05:08:48 PM

DrewCurtisJr: meat0918: We've tried "separate but equal".  Doesn't work.

Seem'd to be working pretty well, unless you think most of the gay parents raising kids in the "research" were legally married.


That's not what I meant, and you know it.
 
2013-03-21 05:09:06 PM

FLMountainMan: There's no doubt that people should be encouraged to raise their own children. However, many people can't, and no amount of counseling, money, or time is going to change that.

If two people want to take a stab at raising that child instead, where is the harm to society? It's hard to believe an apparent conservative is objecting to something that would reduce the amount of public assistance doled out.


No amount? WRONG! And it's volunteer counseling, no money. But give up and there will be even more kids to go around! I see the reasoning for the intrinsic defeatism. And it increases cycles of dependency, increasing public assistance which should not exist in federal form.
 
2013-03-21 05:15:27 PM

meat0918: That's not what I meant, and you know it.


Just trying to bring you back on topic.
 
2013-03-21 05:29:18 PM

George Walker Bush: FLMountainMan: There's no doubt that people should be encouraged to raise their own children. However, many people can't, and no amount of counseling, money, or time is going to change that.

If two people want to take a stab at raising that child instead, where is the harm to society? It's hard to believe an apparent conservative is objecting to something that would reduce the amount of public assistance doled out.

No amount? WRONG! And it's volunteer counseling, no money. But give up and there will be even more kids to go around! I see the reasoning for the intrinsic defeatism. And it increases cycles of dependency, increasing public assistance which should not exist in federal form.


How does letting gays adopt unwanted children out of the foster and/or welfare, system at their own expense, add to the cycles of dependency?
 
2013-03-21 05:29:40 PM

Flash_NYC: cyberspacedout: It's really about the couple's commitment to each other and the family. Whether or not the parents are legally married wouldn't necessarily affect the child's health, unless the marriage somehow did affect the couple's sense of commitment.

Since there's no such thing as a gay shotgun wedding, any same-sex couple who has kids does so voluntarily, and has already put a lot more planning into it than, say, a heterosexual couple that forgot to use a condom. Married or not, the family should be pretty stable.

If you've ever seen the hoops that couples, both gay and straight, need to jump through to adopt, it wouldn't ever surprise me that most adopted kids do better than their peers.


Good point, but that's more of an argument in favor of changing adoption laws. Not all gay couples with kids adopt, though; it's quite possible with a lesbian couple for one or both to have a child of her own.
 
2013-03-21 05:34:30 PM

rkiller1: Wait a minute.  So married couples raise better kids?  That not what I heard from Women's Libbers at NOW.



That's odd.  I figured they most likely told you, "Get away from me, you creep, before I call the police."
 
2013-03-21 05:35:24 PM
Who the fark cares? Gay people are no more special or unspecial than hetero people, so why does this report need to even be published? Also, just because you're gay doesn't automatically qualify you as being father of the year. It just means you're raising a kid, and that you likely enjoy having a wang in your mouth.
 
2013-03-21 05:35:39 PM

BarkingUnicorn: KrustyKitten: I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?

One who's allergic to horses?



Hay, that was pretty funny.
 
2013-03-21 05:37:19 PM

Soymilk: How does letting gays adopt unwanted children out of the foster and/or welfare, system at their own expense, add to the cycles of dependency?


It is not holding the bio-parents responsible, increasing the chance of more irresponsible pregnancies. Which is fine for you (more babies to pass around), but robbing them of...

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***


Anyone want to go for another trip around?
 
2013-03-21 05:41:50 PM

Lumpmoose: hardinparamedic: scottydoesntknow: This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP

I think the APA and the social worker equivalent of them have been saying this for quite a few years now. But it's awesome that the AAP, the definitive source on pediatrics, is now saying it.

Of course, to theocratic conservative hardliners like the religious right, this doesn't mean much, since their 2000 year old book clearly had everything figured out before the advent of modern medicine.

No, they have more than a book.  They invented the American College of Pediatricians to oppose and confuse the AAP's gay family stance (and whatever other "liberal" positions they object to) by peddling junk science.



So basically, when science and medicine didn't go his way, Joseph Zanga told the AAP, "Yeah, well... I'm gonna go build  my own association of pediatricians, with blackjack and hookers!  In fact, forget the blackjack and hookers!"
 
2013-03-21 05:42:14 PM

George Walker Bush: Anyone want to go for another trip around?


I'm good. I can usually only handle one trip on the Derp train before I start to get motion sickness
 
2013-03-21 05:43:02 PM

Wade_Wilson: I have a horrible confession; I actually prefer turkey bacon to pork bacon.

I'm so sorry, internet. Will you forgive my sins if I dip it in Nutella?


Just don't dip any homophobic pediatricians in Nutella and we're golden.
 
2013-03-21 05:43:06 PM
Two primary ingredients in rendering this opinion -

1. You think the Bible is a rubbish can of nonsense
2. That Almighty God is a poppy head

Good Luck
 
2013-03-21 05:45:03 PM

xaldin: Hey if two are better than one... how about 10 or 15. Heck 100 is a nice round number.


So you're saying it takes a village to raise a child?
 
2013-03-21 05:45:04 PM

scottydoesntknow: George Walker Bush: Anyone want to go for another trip around?

I'm good. I can usually only handle one trip on the Derp train before I start to get motion sickness


Trolls sit in back
 
2013-03-21 05:45:43 PM

FLMountainMan: George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Is this a new troll account?


No, he's been doing that schtick for months.
 
2013-03-21 05:48:29 PM

ciberido: xaldin: Hey if two are better than one... how about 10 or 15. Heck 100 is a nice round number.

So you're saying it takes a village to raise a child?


It take an economy capable of a one income household norm and an involved parent with internet. (2)
 
2013-03-21 05:53:01 PM

ciberido: FLMountainMan: George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Is this a new troll account?

No, he's been doing that schtick for months.


Yup. Sound, irrefutable schtick...
 
2013-03-21 05:53:24 PM

Lumpmoose: No, they have more than a book.  They invented the American College of Pediatricians to oppose and confuse the AAP's gay family stance (and whatever other "liberal" positions they object to) by peddling junk science.


Really? I thought American Association of Physicians and Surgeons existed to fill the junk science catagory, since the AMA is too librul.
 
2013-03-21 06:01:29 PM
I bet I wouldn't have gotten my ass kicked in school so much due to my horrible fashion choices if I had gay parents. Also, better window treatments.
 
2013-03-21 06:35:03 PM
I'm a Christian, and I'd prefer orphans go to nice two parent Christian homes, but until there are enough of those to get all the orphans, I don't see how anybody who's not dangerous should be denied. Fat, lazy, gay... I think I know a better way, but they're better than nobody.
 
2013-03-21 06:36:08 PM

andyfromfl: I'm a Christian, and I'd prefer orphans go to nice two parent Christian homes, but until there are enough of those to get all the orphans, I don't see how anybody who's not dangerous should be denied. Fat, lazy, gay... I think I know a better way, but they're better than nobody.


Translation: Only Christian homes can raise the best children. But the non-believers and sinners are better than letting them starve.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:01 PM

Publikwerks: So..

[s21.postimg.org image 850x531]

Is better than

[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]


Oh my god. What does it mean?
 
2013-03-21 06:49:17 PM
As an AAP member, I have to say this is not too much of a change as the Academy already endorsed same sex parents adopting. But last time this happened we had a bunch of fellows cancel their membership in a snit. The AAP chat board was full of conservatives railing away at the Academy for taking such a lefty stance. I'm sure we will have more members tearing up their memberships or not renewing. The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.
 
2013-03-21 07:01:27 PM

Maturin: The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.


In this case, they said over 60 studies, that covered many different aspects of children's lives, from emotional & psychological health to acedemic performance.
 
2013-03-21 07:17:26 PM

ReverendJasen: Maturin: The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.

In this case, they said over 60 studies, that covered many different aspects of children's lives, from emotional & psychological health to acedemic performance.


And not one that compares biological two parent households. Can't have the actual problem being addressed. Once again, politics trump science.
 
2013-03-21 07:20:35 PM

George Walker Bush: ReverendJasen: Maturin: The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.

In this case, they said over 60 studies, that covered many different aspects of children's lives, from emotional & psychological health to acedemic performance.

And not one that compares biological two parent households. Can't have the actual problem being addressed. Once again, politics trump science.


I think a better comparison might be between a same sex couple vs. foster care, which is where many children end up if they were not adopted by a same sex couple. Conservatism trumps reason.
 
2013-03-21 07:34:18 PM
Clemkadidlefark: Two primary ingredients in rendering this opinion -

1. You think the Bible is a rubbish can of nonsense
2. That Almighty God is a poppy head


Coincidentally, people like you say the same thing about evolutionary theory.

You're equally wrong in both cases, of course, but it's still encouraging to see the trend.
 
2013-03-21 07:40:09 PM

fat_free: Who the fark cares? Gay people are no more special or unspecial than hetero people, so why does this report need to even be published? Also, just because you're gay doesn't automatically qualify you as being father of the year. It just means you're raising a kid, and that you likely enjoy having a wang in your mouth.


No shiat, Sherlock. That's the entire point of the gay rights movement, to be treated THE SAME as everyone else and not be attacked by assholes, idiots, and religious farktards for loving people of the same gender.

George Walker Bush: Soymilk: How does letting gays adopt unwanted children out of the foster and/or welfare, system at their own expense, add to the cycles of dependency?

It is not holding the bio-parents responsible, increasing the chance of more irresponsible pregnancies. Which is fine for you (more babies to pass around), but robbing them of...

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Anyone want to go for another trip around?


You didn't clarify anything the first time, why deal with your bullshiat a second time? All I see is you screaming about Obama, which has nothing to do with gays and parenting.
 
2013-03-21 07:45:37 PM

Maturin: George Walker Bush: ReverendJasen: Maturin: The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.

In this case, they said over 60 studies, that covered many different aspects of children's lives, from emotional & psychological health to acedemic performance.

And not one that compares biological two parent households. Can't have the actual problem being addressed. Once again, politics trump science.

I think a better comparison might be between a same sex couple vs. foster care, which is where many children end up if they were not adopted by a same sex couple. Conservatism trumps reason.


That is the only comparison they allow to be studied because they don't want to deal with the root problem. Conservatism = reason
 
2013-03-21 07:50:33 PM

George Walker Bush: Maturin: George Walker Bush: ReverendJasen: Maturin: The AAP has been pretty good about backing up policy changes like this with a good study or two. Once again, science trumps religion.

In this case, they said over 60 studies, that covered many different aspects of children's lives, from emotional & psychological health to acedemic performance.

And not one that compares biological two parent households. Can't have the actual problem being addressed. Once again, politics trump science.

I think a better comparison might be between a same sex couple vs. foster care, which is where many children end up if they were not adopted by a same sex couple. Conservatism trumps reason.

That is the only comparison they allow to be studied because they don't want to deal with the root problem. Conservatism = reason


How would you deal with the root problem of straight people who can't or won't care for their own children? Are you also against straight people adopting?
 
2013-03-21 07:50:58 PM
but my understanding is that lesbians have about a 167% greater chance of divorce than a normal marriage. it seems like the cohort was specifically selected to eliminate this fact by selecting the population for, "nurturing and financially and emotionally stable."
 
2013-03-21 07:52:33 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: fat_free: Who the fark cares? Gay people are no more special or unspecial than hetero people, so why does this report need to even be published? Also, just because you're gay doesn't automatically qualify you as being father of the year. It just means you're raising a kid, and that you likely enjoy having a wang in your mouth.

No shiat, Sherlock. That's the entire point of the gay rights movement, to be treated THE SAME as everyone else and not be attacked by assholes, idiots, and religious farktards for loving people of the same gender.

George Walker Bush: Soymilk: How does letting gays adopt unwanted children out of the foster and/or welfare, system at their own expense, add to the cycles of dependency?

It is not holding the bio-parents responsible, increasing the chance of more irresponsible pregnancies. Which is fine for you (more babies to pass around), but robbing them of...

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Anyone want to go for another trip around?

You didn't clarify anything the first time, why deal with your bullshiat a second time? All I see is you screaming about Obama, which has nothing to do with gays and parenting.


Since you have nothing to refute me I'll butt in on you're other flawed argument. You don't count children as everyone. They don't exist in your paradigm of equality. At least not until they turn 18 or develop a sexual preference.
 
2013-03-21 07:57:35 PM

George Walker Bush: Since you have nothing to refute me I'll butt in on you're other flawed argument. You don't count children as everyone. They don't exist in your paradigm of equality. At least not until they turn 18 or develop a sexual preference.


I'm sorry, what? When did I say that, and what does it have to do with gay people adopting and households with two parents being better for children?

All you've done is blame Obama for destroying the nuclear family and declare that people adopt because they don't want to deal with the "root problem". Maybe when you start making some farking sense we can have a meaningful discussion.
 
2013-03-21 08:04:18 PM

George Walker Bush: Keizer_Ghidorah: fat_free: Who the fark cares? Gay people are no more special or unspecial than hetero people, so why does this report need to even be published? Also, just because you're gay doesn't automatically qualify you as being father of the year. It just means you're raising a kid, and that you likely enjoy having a wang in your mouth.

No shiat, Sherlock. That's the entire point of the gay rights movement, to be treated THE SAME as everyone else and not be attacked by assholes, idiots, and religious farktards for loving people of the same gender.

George Walker Bush: Soymilk: How does letting gays adopt unwanted children out of the foster and/or welfare, system at their own expense, add to the cycles of dependency?

It is not holding the bio-parents responsible, increasing the chance of more irresponsible pregnancies. Which is fine for you (more babies to pass around), but robbing them of...

George Walker Bush: The best environment for raising a child is in a stable household with the biological parents in every science except one, POLITICAL! Can we have some more tax money, Obama? Screw the fact that we are cementing a permanent cycle of screwed up generations of dependency. We need funding for our worthless jobs, trying to create a new science to discredit the nuclear family as a foundation for every healthy society in the history of mankind. But really, it is more important to teach our children to define themselves by how they F***

Anyone want to go for another trip around?

You didn't clarify anything the first time, why deal with your bullshiat a second time? All I see is you screaming about Obama, which has nothing to do with gays and parenting.

Since you have nothing to refute me I'll butt in on you're other flawed argument. You don't count children as everyone. They don't exist in your paradigm of equality. At least not until they turn 18 or develop a sexual preference.



They're laughing at you, not with.
 
2013-03-21 08:06:49 PM

George Walker Bush: And not one that compares biological two parent households.


Care to cite that?  Oh, you can't, because you just made it up.  Another "convservative" who makes shiat up to justify his own reality.

Convservatism = scared little lying farkwads
 
2013-03-21 08:32:26 PM

ReverendJasen: George Walker Bush: And not one that compares biological two parent households.

Care to cite that?  Oh, you can't, because you just made it up.  Another "convservative" who makes shiat up to justify his own reality.

Convservatism = scared little lying farkwads


Cite something isn't there? Really?
 
2013-03-21 08:43:54 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How would you deal with the root problem of straight people who can't or won't care for their own children? Are you also against straight people adopting?


On a federal level? Debtors' prison? But I don't believe in the fed doing anything but defense. And when communities stop depending on the fed to miraculously make it all better, they will find it easier than anyone thinks. Used to be churches were good for this kind of outreach but I doubt they will survive the media onslaught. Maybe we can use the buildings for community centers if they're not burnt down.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:49 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: George Walker Bush: Since you have nothing to refute me I'll butt in on you're other flawed argument. You don't count children as everyone. They don't exist in your paradigm of equality. At least not until they turn 18 or develop a sexual preference.

I'm sorry, what? When did I say that, and what does it have to do with gay people adopting and households with two parents being better for children?

All you've done is blame Obama for destroying the nuclear family and declare that people adopt because they don't want to deal with the "root problem". Maybe when you start making some farking sense we can have a meaningful discussion.


A child not able to be raised by it's parents should be seen as an unfortunate and rare occurrence but that is saved for cutting newborns' necks with a pair of scissors.
 
2013-03-21 08:57:19 PM

George Walker Bush: Keizer_Ghidorah: How would you deal with the root problem of straight people who can't or won't care for their own children? Are you also against straight people adopting?

On a federal level? Debtors' prison? But I don't believe in the fed doing anything but defense. And when communities stop depending on the fed to miraculously make it all better, they will find it easier than anyone thinks. Used to be churches were good for this kind of outreach but I doubt they will survive the media onslaught. Maybe we can use the buildings for community centers if they're not burnt down.


Debtor's prisons for people who can't or won't care for their kids, despite most of the time it not being about money. Yeah. Because money is the only reason. You really are an idiot.

George Walker Bush: Keizer_Ghidorah: George Walker Bush: Since you have nothing to refute me I'll butt in on you're other flawed argument. You don't count children as everyone. They don't exist in your paradigm of equality. At least not until they turn 18 or develop a sexual preference.

I'm sorry, what? When did I say that, and what does it have to do with gay people adopting and households with two parents being better for children?

All you've done is blame Obama for destroying the nuclear family and declare that people adopt because they don't want to deal with the "root problem". Maybe when you start making some farking sense we can have a meaningful discussion.

A child not able to be raised by it's parents should be seen as an unfortunate and rare occurrence but that is saved for cutting newborns' necks with a pair of scissors.


Maybe if God would wave his hand and make everything like he wants it to be, it would stop happening. Since he doesn't exist, we have to rely on ourselves and each other. A lot of people are perfectly willing to adopt children and raise them, I don't see why you have such a problem with that. You're not going to force people to be good parents with threats of death, prison, and other punishments, the best course is to take their kids away and let others who actually will care for them care for them, and the genders of the adopters don't matter a single shiat.
 
2013-03-21 08:58:18 PM

George Walker Bush: Keizer_Ghidorah: How would you deal with the root problem of straight people who can't or won't care for their own children? Are you also against straight people adopting?

On a federal level? Debtors' prison? But I don't believe in the fed doing anything but defense. And when communities stop depending on the fed to miraculously make it all better, they will find it easier than anyone thinks. Used to be churches were good for this kind of outreach but I doubt they will survive the media onslaught. Maybe we can use the buildings for community centers if they're not burnt down.


We're burning churches now?  Man, who didn't forward the memo?

On a more serious note, I think we have found Bachmann's handle.  Sooner or later, this one is going to start running away, too.
 
2013-03-21 09:00:43 PM

DrewCurtisJr: meat0918: We've tried "separate but equal".  Doesn't work.

Seem'd to be working pretty well


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-21 09:02:30 PM

Biological Ali: Not sure if serious.


So you question the conclusions of this research?
 
2013-03-21 09:03:17 PM
Seriously? People are going to try and "debate" someone with the handle George Walker Bush? The only way he could make it any more obvious is if he changed his handle to The Guy Trolling the Thread Right Now.
 
2013-03-21 09:06:37 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: Not sure if serious.

So you question the conclusions of this research?


The only thing I question is whether you're just having a bit of fun, simply aren't very bright, or are an actual bigot. I'm hoping that subsequent responses will shed some light on the matter.
 
2013-03-21 09:09:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe if God would wave his hand and make everything like he wants it to be, it would stop happening. Since he doesn't exist, we have to rely on ourselves and each other. A lot of people are perfectly willing to adopt children and raise them, I don't see why you have such a problem with that. You're not going to force people to be good parents with threats of death, prison, and other punishments, the best course is to take their kids away and let others who actually will care for them care for them, and the genders of the adopters don't matter a single shiat.


Speaking of best courses, counseling is not threatening and it curbs the repetition of these unfortunate circumstances occurring.
 
2013-03-21 09:12:58 PM

Biological Ali: The only thing I question is whether you're just having a bit of fun, simply aren't very bright, or are an actual bigot. I'm hoping that subsequent responses will shed some light on the matter.


It's always the same with you, name calling and only questioning studies and research that doesn't support your ideology.
 
2013-03-21 09:13:24 PM

Publikwerks: So..

[s21.postimg.org image 850x531]

Is better than

[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]


Nice pics of the Nubble lighthouse.  That's just up the road from me, in Maine, where gay marriage is legal.
 
2013-03-21 09:14:15 PM

Biological Ali: Seriously? People are going to try and "debate" someone with the handle George Walker Bush? The only way he could make it any more obvious is if he changed his handle to The Guy Trolling the Thread Right Now.


And the troll appears! This is some Inception stuff right here...
 
2013-03-21 09:18:21 PM
Some of you may not have noticed the qualifiers "nurturing and stable" and "with children". What they aren't mentioning is that gay couples rarely are stable, and research has shown that children need both a male and female parent for the proper balance of nurture and discipline. Children with two married parents of the opposite sex vastly outperform any other category. So while I agree that marriage is better than not marriage, I totally disagree with the premise that children should be placed with gays at all. But I knew this was coming - gays want to use marriage as a leverage to get children, and they're just coming at this from both sides to achieve their goals.

Did I mention, by the way, that the stats they're basing this on are probably from a few studies where they asked the parents to answer questions, not on any sort of quantifiable criteria, and that the sampling size is so small that the margin of error is quite large? Not to mention they selectively pick their subjects, as I stated above.
 
2013-03-21 09:20:24 PM

j0ndas: Some of you may not have noticed the qualifiers "nurturing and stable" and "with children". What they aren't mentioning is that gay couples rarely are stable, and research has shown that children need both a male and female parent for the proper balance of nurture and discipline. Children with two married parents of the opposite sex vastly outperform any other category. So while I agree that marriage is better than not marriage, I totally disagree with the premise that children should be placed with gays at all. But I knew this was coming - gays want to use marriage as a leverage to get children, and they're just coming at this from both sides to achieve their goals.

Did I mention, by the way, that the stats they're basing this on are probably from a few studies where they asked the parents to answer questions, not on any sort of quantifiable criteria, and that the sampling size is so small that the margin of error is quite large? Not to mention they selectively pick their subjects, as I stated above.


Care to cite some sources? Also love the "gays are pedos" part, it's like you trolls aren't even trying anymore.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:24 PM

j0ndas: Some of you may not have noticed the qualifiers "nurturing and stable" and "with children".  What they aren't mentioning is that gay couples rarely are stable, and research has shown that children need both a male and female parent for the proper balance of nurture and discipline. Children with two married parents of the opposite sex vastly outperform any other category. So while I agree that marriage is better than not marriage, I totally disagree with the premise that children should be placed with gays at all. But I knew this was coming - gays want to use marriage as a leverage to get children, and they're just coming at this from both sides to achieve their goals.

Did I mention, by the way, that the stats they're basing this on are probably from a few studies where they asked the parents to answer questions, not on any sort of quantifiable criteria, and that the sampling size is so small that the margin of error is quite large? Not to mention they selectively pick their subjects, as I stated above.


Did you not read the article?  They said the kids are raised just as well as straight couples.  And I'd be curious to see this "research" you don't cite showing that straight couples vastly outperform same-sex couples.
 
2013-03-21 09:31:27 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: The only thing I question is whether you're just having a bit of fun, simply aren't very bright, or are an actual bigot. I'm hoping that subsequent responses will shed some light on the matter.

It's always the same with you, name calling and only questioning studies and research that doesn't support your ideology.


Just for the sake of hilarity, what exactly is it that you think the research mentioned in TFA demonstrates?
 
2013-03-21 09:34:07 PM

George Walker Bush: Biological Ali: Seriously? People are going to try and "debate" someone with the handle George Walker Bush? The only way he could make it any more obvious is if he changed his handle to The Guy Trolling the Thread Right Now.

And the troll appears! This is some Inception stuff right here...


Look, you'd be better off just taking a leaf out of Mike_Lowell's book and doing some proper satire. This pseudo-serious shtick isn't really working out.
 
2013-03-21 09:47:24 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: And I'd be curious to see this "research" you don't cite showing that straight couples vastly outperform same-sex couples.


There is none, he's just another lying bigot.

One thing about these kinds of threads, it sure gives one a chance to update your farkie list with the trolls.
 
2013-03-21 09:48:38 PM

Biological Ali: Just for the sake of hilarity, what exactly is it that you think the research mentioned in TFA demonstrates?


I don't know what it demonstrates, they don't mention what research it is.

But this group thinks it demonstrates that children are better off if gay parent are married. I don't believe they could come up with this conclusion using only married gay parents in the research.
 
2013-03-21 09:50:35 PM

George Walker Bush: Biological Ali: Seriously? People are going to try and "debate" someone with the handle George Walker Bush? The only way he could make it any more obvious is if he changed his handle to The Guy Trolling the Thread Right Now.

And the troll appears! This is some Inception stuff right here...



0.3/10

Rephrased
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-03-21 09:52:36 PM

fetushead: I bet I wouldn't have gotten my ass kicked in school so much due to my horrible fashion choices if I had gay parents. Also, better window treatments.


That's an awful stereotype.

my gay neighbors have terrible taste in decor and zero window treatments on a giant picture window.

/also 4 foot tall lantern in the front lawn.
//not a pole with a light on top, a 4 foot glass box.
 
2013-03-21 09:56:34 PM

George Walker Bush: A child not able to be raised by it's parents should be seen as an unfortunate and rare occurrence but that is saved for cutting newborns' necks with a pair of scissors.


Really? Orphans/Abandoned children equate to the Kermit Gosnel murder case, a pseudo-physician who viewed himself as furthering the human race by eugenically exterminating inferior offspring by race?

Christ, son. Every time you open your mouth you achieve new levels in stupidity! You're not even being funny. You're just being sad, now.
 
2013-03-21 09:57:20 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: Just for the sake of hilarity, what exactly is it that you think the research mentioned in TFA demonstrates?

I don't know what it demonstrates, they don't mention what research it is.


You can find it in the technical report. Here it is.
 
2013-03-21 09:58:47 PM

hardinparamedic: Christ, son. Every time you open your mouth you achieve new levels in stupidity! You're not even being funny. You're just being sad, now.


Dude, he's doing it on purpose. Please consider that before making any further reply.
 
2013-03-21 10:00:56 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Keep in mind, though, that the people opposed to gay marriage "for the children" already think that biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, physicists, astronomers, most historians, NASA, the UN, the AP, the AMA, the APA, the WHOI, the NEA, APL, JAP, JABS, AAB, JIM, and Jim, my high school biology teacher are all a plot of to make kids reject God, so I don't think that it'll be mentally difficult for them to dismiss another organization with a 3-letter acronym for being part of the conspiracy.


that is really out there. i'd gamble that you're more likely to find some people that are just uncomfortable with gays, hate gays, or have met many gay people who are all farked up. just because you're gay doesn't make you a sane, stable well educated loving parent free from a ton of baggage.
 
2013-03-21 10:09:58 PM

KrispyKritter: that is really out there. i'd gamble that you're more likely to find some people that are just uncomfortable with gays, hate gays, or have met many gay people who are all farked up. just because you're gay doesn't make you a sane, stable well educated loving parent free from a ton of baggage.


I think the point that all of those organizations are making is that there is absolutely no evidence, other than what a religious text written by a nomadic desert people under the control of the Roman Empire compiled, that supports the insinuation that children who grow up in a home with gay parents are at any kind of risk that kids in straight homes are not.

That is to say the push against homosexuals in the United States adopting children is not based in any fact, but rather in vitriol and bigotry.
 
2013-03-21 10:18:36 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: Just for the sake of hilarity, what exactly is it that you think the research mentioned in TFA demonstrates?

I don't know what it demonstrates, they don't mention what research it is.

But this group thinks it demonstrates that children are better off if gay parent are married. I don't believe they could come up with this conclusion using only married gay parents in the research.


Are you typing up your responses in some other language and running it through Google Translate or something?
 
2013-03-21 10:21:36 PM

Hickory-smoked: You can find it in the technical report. Here it is.


And just as I suspected. Doesn't restrict itself to children of only gay marriages.
 
2013-03-21 10:25:38 PM

DrewCurtisJr: And just as I suspected. Doesn't restrict itself to children of only gay marriages.


Counter-Point: That would severely limit the sample size, considering only a hand-full of states will allow Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions. Defining the relationship as stable and monogamistic would serve purposes adequately.
 
2013-03-21 10:32:18 PM

hardinparamedic:  Defining the relationship as stable and monogamistic would serve purposes adequately.


So you agree with my original point.
 
2013-03-21 10:36:44 PM

DrewCurtisJr: So you agree with my original point.


Yes, and No. For the purposes of this position statement, it looked at stable, monogamist relationships when comparing them to straight stable, monogamist relationships. Because that's what the position statement is supporting - Civil Union/Marriage between the two parties of a same sex couple.

However, as the child of a single parent, I would point out that having the other parent in a child's life is only one factor which leads to a balanced, well adjusted childhood and person coming out of it.

The problem with making a position statement for any leading medical organization is that it HAS to be evidence-based in it's approach. You have to back up that practice with studies. If I make a position statement that, for example, unperforated appendicitis in a child is best managed by broad-spectrum, late generation antibiotics like Meropenem and observation rather than immediate surgery, I have to have studies and evidence as the AAP to back that up. The same here.
 
2013-03-21 10:43:42 PM

hardinparamedic: Because that's what the position statement is supporting - Civil Union/Marriage between the two parties of a same sex couple.


Let's not pretend like we don't know what this is about. Civil union and marriage aren't interchangeable for the gay rights movement.
 
2013-03-21 10:45:02 PM
DrewCurtisJr

You need to articulate yourself more clearly. Earlier on, you seemed to be suggesting that there was something about the research which proved that the policy of "separate but equal" was "working pretty well". Now, you no longer seem to be making claims about what the research proves and instead seem to be suggesting that you have some issue with its methodology.

Very little about your actual claims, questions or concerns is clear, beyond that you either had significant difficulty understanding the description of the research, or that you're not familiar with what "separate but equal" means in the context of American political history.

Seriously - if your first language is something other than English, you may want to ask a friend to translate for you. Online translators can be quite unreliable.
 
2013-03-21 10:57:02 PM

DrewCurtisJr: hardinparamedic: Because that's what the position statement is supporting - Civil Union/Marriage between the two parties of a same sex couple.

Let's not pretend like we don't know what this is about. Civil union and marriage aren't interchangeable for the gay rights movement.


Legally, there shouldn't be any difference, if that's what you're getting at. The terms should be interchangeable  and if a gay couple wants to say they're married, they should be able to do so.

This separate but equal BS went out of vogue with the 19th and early 20th centuries and Jim Crow,  And quite frankly, the legal argument "gays make me feel icky" doesn't mean diddly in court. Especially since the SCOTUS has ruled Marriage is an inalienable right of Citizens of the United States.
 
2013-03-21 10:57:40 PM
Aww... can't suffer bomb-throwers? What party you from?
 
2013-03-21 10:57:51 PM

Biological Ali: You need to articulate yourself more clearly. Earlier on, you seemed to be suggesting that there was something about the research which proved that the policy of "separate but equal" was "working pretty well".


What do you think the research is "proving"?
 
2013-03-21 11:07:05 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: You need to articulate yourself more clearly. Earlier on, you seemed to be suggesting that there was something about the research which proved that the policy of "separate but equal" was "working pretty well".

What do you think the research is "proving"?


Before I answer your questions, I'd like to know exactly what you meant when you said this (in response to a person who said that "separate but equal" doesn't work):

Seem'd to be working pretty well, unless you think most of the gay parents raising kids in the "research" were legally married.

...because you seemed to be taking a specific stance regarding what you thought the research "seem'd" (sic) to show, but your subsequent posts didn't provide much in the way of clarification.

Of course, I could ignore that comment and just start walking you through the entire study, but I'd like to know where you're coming from so as to not waste time talking past you.
 
2013-03-21 11:09:44 PM

Biological Ali: DrewCurtisJr: Biological Ali: You need to articulate yourself more clearly. Earlier on, you seemed to be suggesting that there was something about the research which proved that the policy of "separate but equal" was "working pretty well".

What do you think the research is "proving"?

Before I answer your questions, I'd like to know exactly what you meant when you said this (in response to a person who said that "separate but equal" doesn't work):

Seem'd to be working pretty well, unless you think most of the gay parents raising kids in the "research" were legally married.

...because you seemed to be taking a specific stance regarding what you thought the research "seem'd" (sic) to show, but your subsequent posts didn't provide much in the way of clarification.


Just answer the question.
 
2013-03-21 11:40:32 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Just answer the question.


I don't even know which "research" you're referring to, much less what your specific issue with it is. I can't carry on a conversation with you if I have no clue what you're saying.

Are you referring to the AAP's policy statement, or the studies that they're citing? In either case, you're better off having a bilingual friend read it and explain it to you in your native language. I don't think I could simplify things any further than the Washington Post already has without crucial information being lost in the process.
 
2013-03-22 12:50:08 AM

Biological Ali: DrewCurtisJr: meat0918: We've tried "separate but equal".  Doesn't work.

Seem'd to be working pretty well

Not sure if serious.


Well, that's Poe's Law for you.
 
2013-03-22 01:11:51 AM
Subby, same-sex couples don't make babies.
 
2013-03-22 01:22:04 AM

Publikwerks: So..

[s21.postimg.org image 850x531]

Is better than

[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]


Off topic, but that's the Nubble Light. You from around here, sport?
 
2013-03-22 01:53:31 AM

George Walker Bush: Biological Ali: Seriously? People are going to try and "debate" someone with the handle George Walker Bush? The only way he could make it any more obvious is if he changed his handle to The Guy Trolling the Thread Right Now.

And the troll appears! This is some Inception stuff right here...


Without the presence of constantly blaring horns, I'd have to say you're way, way off base.

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-22 01:57:45 AM

kutsuke: Subby, same-sex couples adopt babies.


FTFY
 
2013-03-22 02:38:23 AM
j0ndas: Some of you may not have noticed the qualifiers "nurturing and stable" and "with children".  What they aren't mentioning is that gay couples rarely are stable, and research has shown that children need both a male and female parent for the proper balance of nurture and discipline. Children with two married parents of the opposite sex vastly outperform any other category. So while I agree that marriage is better than not marriage, I totally disagree with the premise that children should be placed with gays at all. But I knew this was coming - gays want to use marriage as a leverage to get children, and they're just coming at this from both sides to achieve their goals.
Did I mention, by the way, that the stats they're basing this on are probably from a few studies where they asked the parents to answer questions, not on any sort of quantifiable criteria, and that the sampling size is so small that the margin of error is quite large? Not to mention they selectively pick their subjects, as I stated above.


Almost Everybody Poops: Did you not read the article?  They said the kids are raised just as well as straight couples.  And I'd be curious to see this "research" you don't cite showing that straight couples vastly outperform same-sex couples.



j0ndas is a well-known liar.  He'll frequently make assertions that contradict the article, or something somebody posted evidence for earlier in the thread.  When confronted, he'll either simply ignore you or say he read it somewhere or "everybody knows" it to be true.  At best he might link to some right-wing blog.  He's done that in numerous other threads about homosexuality (which seems to be one of his main "hot button" issues).

The one that stuck out for me was his "research has shown that children need both a male and female parent for the proper balance of nurture and discipline," which is not only the opposite of factually correct but throws in a nice addition of sexism for good measure.  It's like killing two birds with one derp.
 
2013-03-22 02:38:44 AM
I strongly suspect that heterosexual couples have produced the majority of gay people out there.
 
2013-03-22 04:17:10 AM

Yes this is dog: Publikwerks: So..

[s21.postimg.org image 850x531]

Is better than

[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]

Off topic, but that's the Nubble Light. You from around here, sport?


I commented on that, too.  Nice to see someone else from this corner of NH.
 
2013-03-22 07:07:22 AM
foster kid would have really enjoyed two parents.
Don't give a fark who they were as long as they aren't bad people
 
2013-03-22 08:17:39 AM

RatMaster999: Yes this is dog: Publikwerks: So..

[s21.postimg.org image 850x531]

Is better than

[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]

Off topic, but that's the Nubble Light. You from around here, sport?

I commented on that, too.  Nice to see someone else from this corner of NH.


Yeah, I've had you farkied for a while now as being from around here. Ever since that dope set fire to the sub.
 
2013-03-22 10:26:50 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doubled99: Any "study" that says homosexuals don't make good parents is bullshiat.

Any study that says homosexuals make good parents is equally bullshiat

I think it's more that a child will do better with two gay parents, in general, than one parent or no parent.


Well, no, it goes beyond that. It says the kids are no worse off than with heterosexual parents.

"Kids fare just as well in gay or straight families when they are nurturing and financially and emotionally stable, the academy says."
 
2013-03-22 01:29:05 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-22 01:29:44 PM
Louis C.K. - "It doesn't have any effect on your life. What do you care?! People try to talk about it like it's a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and say, 'How am I supposed to explain to my children that two men are getting married?'... I dunno. It's your shiatty kid. You farkin' tell 'em. Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in LOVE and they can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child for five farkin' minutes?"

/oblig
 
2013-03-22 09:36:22 PM
if they want to raise a kid,
just do it well...
if your child has questions down the line,
come up with some decent answers, you owe your child that.

But, if you get right down to it,
I'm on my 5th beer and honestly don't give a flying FARK...
 
2013-03-22 09:42:47 PM

Biological Ali: I don't even know which "research" you're referring to, much less what your specific issue with it is


The same research you asked me about.

Just for the sake of hilarity, what exactly is it that you think the research mentioned in TFA demonstrates?

WTF do you think
 
fdr
2013-03-23 04:43:36 AM

doubled99: Any "study" that says homosexuals don't make good parents is bullshiat.

Any study that says homosexuals make good parents is equally bullshiat


doublespeak
 
Displayed 168 of 168 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report