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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report