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 32
    More: Cool, American Academy of Pediatrics, gay parents, couples  
•       •       •

2448 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-21 02:37:17 PM  
7 votes:
I'm ok with this.

What child wouldn't benefit from being raised in a loving stable home?
2013-03-21 01:16:47 PM  
6 votes:
This is bad news...for every hate-filled bigot who screams "We're doing it for the children!"

/Nice job AAP
2013-03-21 02:44:41 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:42:44 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:18:05 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:04:49 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:53:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:44:26 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:05:24 PM  
2 votes:
So, two caregivers are better than one.

Call Captain Obvious...
2013-03-21 03:03:51 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:55:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:37:19 PM  
2 votes:
www.insidefacebook.com
2013-03-21 02:17:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:03:17 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:06:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:40:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:34:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:20:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:01:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:35:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:34:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:16:29 PM  
1 votes:
I believe Law and Order already covered this.
2013-03-21 04:12:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:31:59 PM  
1 votes:
Dan Quayle was right.
2013-03-21 03:16:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:16:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:53:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:34 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:47:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:15 PM  
1 votes:
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!
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report