Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad

    Liberals lies that gays are as good a parents as a mother and a father?

    Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.
    Public Discourse 10 February 2015 A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter ...

  • #2
    Research isn't necessary for this actually. Common sense, simple biology and the fact that this is how we evolved, or were created ... whichever you prefer - to regenerate our kind through time for best results ... that's all.

    Families based on opposite genders are, and always have been the foundation - the "brick" of civilization.

    Destroy this with perverted notions centered on nothing more than sexual excitement(s) and you then destroy civilization.

    It happens every time, history gives us plenty of examples.

    But few are listening today. The swan song of destruction calls, has convinced us that right is wrong and vice versa.

    ----------------------------- ... AND...

    ... and as we celebrate perversion, call murder a "right" and vote criminals as our "leaders" some of us wonder ....

    -----------------------------


    Where are you, country? Why cant I find you? Why have you gone away?

    ...................

    ........................The courts have unconditionally surrendered, telling us essentially, Dont believe your lying eyes when you read the Constitution. This beautiful document does not require a Harvard degree to understand. The degree is needed to pretend we are still following it.

    ................................

    Some may begin to say, as in the classic hymn Amazing Grace, I once was blind, but now I see. Then, perhaps, elections will not be decided on some unrealistic and undefined fantasy, or who has that Evita little touch of star quality, but on how to find the liberty that has been lost. If so, some day our children can sing:

    I feel you country. I know I've found you.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...u_country.html

    ?


    • #3
      I've posted this before (several times, actually), but the research also is not necessarily "new:"

      Research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.
      • Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. "Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p. 48.
      • Kristen Andersen Moore, et.al. "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002) pp.1-2.
      • Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45.
      • Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
      • Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children's Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
      • Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
      • David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.


      This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent-child bonding.
      • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.

      While single parenthood, adoption, and remarriage are each loving responses to failure of the natural family, children reared in these settings face unique challenges.
      • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.
      • SchneiderB, AtteberryA, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute;2005:1-42.
      There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.
      • Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005).
      • Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995).
      • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.

      Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression. Also, gender-linked differences in child rearing styles between parents are complementary and protective for children.
      • Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995).
      • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.

      Gender differences are also reflected in the way mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers frequently soothe, calm, and comfort with touch. Fathers are more likely to use touch to stimulate or excite their children during play. Mothers tend to engage with children on their level providing opportunities for children to take charge and proceed at their own pace. As fathers engage in rough and tumble play, they take on a teaching role like that of a coach. Roughhousing between fathers and sons is associated with the development of greater self-control in adolescent boys. Gender-linked diversity is also observed in parental approaches to discipline. "The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approach of mothers tends toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment." Consequently, being reared by a mother and a father helps sons and daughters moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. Boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion. Girls generally place greater emphasis on emotional ties, relationships, caution, and compassion. Over time opposite-sexed parents demonstrate to their children the value of opposing tendencies.
      • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.

      Research on homosexual parenting
      Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from homosexual parenting have critical design flaws. These include non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, failure to account for confounding variables, and perhaps most problematic - all claim to affirm the null hypothesis. Therefore, it is impossible for these studies to provide any support for the alleged safety or potential benefits to children from same-sex parenting
      • Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC;Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy B, 2001.
      • P. Morgan, P. Morgan Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
      • J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC

      Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern[list][*]American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, EC, and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. "Technical report: Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 343.
      [B]This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity
      • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
      • J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129.
      • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
      • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
      • J. Biosoc. Sci., (2010) 42, 721-742, Cambridge University Press, 2010

      Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts
      • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
      Research has also shown considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle which is support for BOTH my argument that homosexual parents are worse for children AND homosexual marriages are deleterious to our moral values as a country:
      1. Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.
        Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
        D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
        Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
        "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
        Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.
      2. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years
        David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252-253.
        M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
        Schumm, Walter R.(2010) 'Comparative Relationship Stabilitiy of Lesbian Mother and Heterosexual Mother Families: A Review of Evidence', Marriage & Family Review, 46:8, 499-509.
        M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
      3. Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships
        A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
        Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
        A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
        "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
        Marie Xiridoui, et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in "steady relationships" reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
      4. Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans.
        J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
        Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
        Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk =for some form of emotional problems; including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence..."
        Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
        R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
        Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
        Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
      5. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.
        Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

      Conclusion
      In summary, tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children. The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

      Principal Authors: Michelle Cretella, MD and Den Trumbull, MD
      Originally posted January 22, 2004
      Revised January 2012

      ?


      • #4
        I like that conclusion, biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children, and children develop optimally when reared by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. And while the studies are faulty on single gender parenting, is there some kind of graph that can tell me roughly where below optimal single gender parenting is compared to biological parents in a high conflict marriage, a single father, a single mother, a biological member of the extended family, adoptive parents, foster care, or homelessness?

        ?


        • #5
          Probably not. While we're waiting for those graphs, we need to emphasize optimal conditions for raising children. Prohibiting a lesbian from getting pregnant and raising the child seems like nanny-state, just from the political right this time.

          What we need is the nanny-state getting it's family-court panties in a huge wad when kids are raised poorly, passing acceptable thresholds. For instance:
          -Heterosexual parent(s) getting bent out of shape and trying to convince homosexual child that he/she is not really homosexual.
          -Homosexual parent(s) getting bent out of shape and trying to convince heterosexual child that he/she is not really heterosexual.
          -Single parent households as somehow being "just as good" as two parent households. Propaganda should be directed to the two parent ideal, single parenting should be discouraged in the press. Can't withhold help for the single parent, when that hurts the kid. But it is good to discourage it all the same.
          -Inform the kids on what is a "normal range" of parenting. Dad pounding the table when something goes really bad is not "family violence". Dad hitting the kid is family violence, regardless of religious teachings. Psychological sadism should be described, reporting it should be encouraged so a family court can help sort it out.

          Much more important than getting bent out of shape on the "gay parent" issue.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Probably not. While we're waiting for those graphs, we need to emphasize optimal conditions for raising children. Prohibiting a lesbian from getting pregnant and raising the child seems like nanny-state, just from the political right this time.

            What we need is the nanny-state getting it's family-court panties in a huge wad when kids are raised poorly, passing acceptable thresholds. For instance:
            -Heterosexual parent(s) getting bent out of shape and trying to convince homosexual child that he/she is not really homosexual.
            -Homosexual parent(s) getting bent out of shape and trying to convince heterosexual child that he/she is not really heterosexual.
            -Single parent households as somehow being "just as good" as two parent households. Propaganda should be directed to the two parent ideal, single parenting should be discouraged in the press. Can't withhold help for the single parent, when that hurts the kid. But it is good to discourage it all the same.
            -Inform the kids on what is a "normal range" of parenting. Dad pounding the table when something goes really bad is not "family violence". Dad hitting the kid is family violence, regardless of religious teachings. Psychological sadism should be described, reporting it should be encouraged so a family court can help sort it out.

            Much more important than getting bent out of shape on the "gay parent" issue.
            See, but you guys are going to the fringes and that is not what the argument is about. No one is asking the state to get involved to restrain homosexuals from parenting. The question at the bar is, whether or not homosexual parents are (as ArmyFerret put it) providing an optimal environment for the children. I think the overwhelming evidence shows "no." If we want to then tackle those other issues such as sub-optimal dual-gender parenting or single parenting, in my opinion, those are seperate issues and should be addressed seperately (though still under the banner "parenting")... and particularly violence in the home should be addressed continually on its own.


            If ArmyFerret (or anyone) is interested in some kind of graph (which I doubt exists) that shows optimal ranges, I suggest she set out to look for it and present it here like I presented all that volumninous research above.

            ?


            • #7
              Since gay parents will always be in the small minority (since it is a small portion of the population that is gay), optimal environments for children will include even fewer gay parents. Optimal would be a society at large that overwhelmingly doesn't care about another's sexual orientation, children included. As it stands, kids with gay parents will suffer at least a little bit more than children of heterosexuals because others will bother or ostracize them based on that difference. Internally, to the extent that gay parents self-segregate, they might aggravate that problem by restricting their kids' experience with non-gays. Kids need to learn how to deal with conflict, regardless of their parents' situation.

              Aside from that, the vast majority of dysfunctional parents will be heterosexual. But your point is taken. A small portion of dysfunctional parents will be gay, and must be included in society's efforts to improve the quality of parenting. No one gets a free pass -assumption that they are good parents- based on genetic factors.

              If the time and energy is devoted to making parents aware of optimum conditions and the need to make them personal goals, then any studies in that direction are welcome.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                I've posted this before (several times, actually), but the research also is not necessarily "new:"

                Research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.
                • Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. "Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries," Population and Development Review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p. 48.
                • Kristen Andersen Moore, et.al. "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?" (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002) pp.1-2.
                • Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45.
                • Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
                • Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children's Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
                • Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
                • David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.



                This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent-child bonding.
                • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.


                While single parenthood, adoption, and remarriage are each loving responses to failure of the natural family, children reared in these settings face unique challenges.
                • Glenn Stanton Why Marriage Matters (Colorado Springs: Pinon Press, 1997) p. 97-153.
                • SchneiderB, AtteberryA, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute;2005:1-42.

                There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.
                • Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences (New York: Doubleday, 2005).
                • Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995).
                • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.


                Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression. Also, gender-linked differences in child rearing styles between parents are complementary and protective for children.
                • Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless America. (New York: Basic books, 1995).
                • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.


                Gender differences are also reflected in the way mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers frequently soothe, calm, and comfort with touch. Fathers are more likely to use touch to stimulate or excite their children during play. Mothers tend to engage with children on their level providing opportunities for children to take charge and proceed at their own pace. As fathers engage in rough and tumble play, they take on a teaching role like that of a coach. Roughhousing between fathers and sons is associated with the development of greater self-control in adolescent boys. Gender-linked diversity is also observed in parental approaches to discipline. "The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approach of mothers tends toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment." Consequently, being reared by a mother and a father helps sons and daughters moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. Boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion. Girls generally place greater emphasis on emotional ties, relationships, caution, and compassion. Over time opposite-sexed parents demonstrate to their children the value of opposing tendencies.
                • Byrd, Dean. "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree," Journal of Law & Family Studies, University of Utah, Vol. 6 no. 2, 2005.


                Research on homosexual parenting
                Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from homosexual parenting have critical design flaws. These include non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, failure to account for confounding variables, and perhaps most problematic - all claim to affirm the null hypothesis. Therefore, it is impossible for these studies to provide any support for the alleged safety or potential benefits to children from same-sex parenting
                • Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC;Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy B, 2001.
                • P. Morgan, P. Morgan Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
                • J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC


                Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern[list][*]American Academy of Pediatrics, Perrin, EC, and the committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. "Technical report: Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics. 109(2002): 343.
                [B]This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity
                • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
                • J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129.
                • F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
                • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
                • J. Biosoc. Sci., (2010) 42, 721-742, Cambridge University Press, 2010


                Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts
                • Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

                Research has also shown considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle … which is support for BOTH my argument that homosexual parents are worse for children AND homosexual “marriages” are deleterious to our moral values as a country:

                1. Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.
                  Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
                  D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
                  Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
                  "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
                  Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.
                2. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years
                  David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252-253.
                  M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
                  Schumm, Walter R.(2010) 'Comparative Relationship Stabilitiy of Lesbian Mother and Heterosexual Mother Families: A Review of Evidence', Marriage & Family Review, 46:8, 499-509.
                  M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
                3. Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships
                  A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
                  Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
                  A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
                  "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
                  Marie Xiridoui, et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in "steady relationships" reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
                4. Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans.
                  J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
                  Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
                  Bailey, J. M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk =for some form of emotional problems; including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence..."
                  Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
                  R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
                  Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
                  Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
                5. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.
                  Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

                An optimal, and most 'normal' situation, the one that's been most historically prevalent by far, sure.

                That being said, this doesn't seem to speak to when a child is reared by 2 gay parents in a loving low conflict relationship. I'd have to believe that a child would do better in this situation over foster care.

                ?


                • #9
                  How do they do with 2 well adjusted dads/moms vs in foster care system/orphanages? Better eh? Then what are we arguing about?

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                    An optimal, and most 'normal' situation, the one that's been most historically prevalent by far, sure.

                    That being said, this doesn't seem to speak to when a child is reared by 2 gay parents in a loving low conflict relationship. I'd have to believe that a child would do better in this situation over foster care.
                    No, it doesn't ... because the discussion is about how well one group parents, that group being homosexuals. The research reports homosexual parents, as a group, tend to have higher incidences of violence and multiple partners and less stability and more drug use ... etc. It shows children raised by homosexual parents tend to fare worse than their heterosexual-parented counterparts.

                    I'm sure there ARE homosexuals who make good parents and produce well-adjusted progeny. But according to that research above, the odds are against such happening.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      How do they do with 2 well adjusted dads/moms vs in foster care system/orphanages? Better eh? Then what are we arguing about?
                      You will have to produce some kind of support for your apparently foregone conclusion. NOT that you're probably right, but just saying it doesn't make it so.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        How do they do with 2 well adjusted dads/moms vs in foster care system/orphanages? Better eh? Then what are we arguing about?
                        I don't think either of those options is good for the child. Should we pick the better of two disadvantageous options? Both are dysfunctional, although it is probably easier on a child to tell his peers that he lives in a foster home, rather than with a couple of queers. Of course, we have waged a battle against societal attitudes towards the queers, in order to make what was once totally unacceptable, acceptable, but we still have an undercurrent in society that doesn't accept it, internally, although they may fake it so as not to be called homophobic. And we will always have such an undercurrent, for there are reasons it was unacceptable in most civilized societies, and one of those reasons is the natural revulsion a true heterosexual has towards homosexuality, at least when it comes to males. And it has always been a man's world, even still, in today's enlightened times in the West. For the very thing that makes a heterosexual, a heterosexual, causes the division between homosexual lifestyles, although today people want to attribute it purely to social conditioning. But something in the past created that social conditioning, and IMO, what created it is what I have mentioned. That is, if social conditioning is created from a natural feeling of heterosexuals towards homosexuality, then reversing the conditioning will never make it acceptable completely. But the conditioning will cause people to fake, being ok with it.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          This is an interesting read, and perspective, from a person who was raised by a "gay" couple.

                          Perhaps one worth hearing by ALL sides ?

                          But, ... will all sides listen and consider these things ? Or will they just quickly dismiss it so they don't have to ?

                          ----------------------------------
                          ................

                          The dissident COGs (Children of gays) who refuse to follow either sides party line are growing in number. We will not be left out of this marriage showdown about to go before the Supreme Court. This time around Anthony Kennedy will not be able to assume he knows what we are thinking, and the Human Rights Campaign will not be able to tell us what we are supposed to want. We wont let people use us anymore. Keep your eyes out for our briefs against gay marriage. Even if we cant change history, at least we want to be part of it. Our time has come. We deserve it.

                          Id love to say: I was raised by a lesbian who took me to a motor home on the weekends so she and her lover could hike and build wooden decks together. When I worked in my mothers clinic doing typing and filing, I transcribed the files of her mentally ill patients, some of whom were gay or transgender, so I knew everything about sex a kid could possibly imagine by the time I was fourteen. By the time I was sixteen, I was getting in lots of trouble. By the way, because this was my life and I refuse to lie about the problems it caused me, I have been dubbed an anti-gay bigot by all the major gay advocacy organizations and the other people at this table have banned me from the department listserv and newsletter."

                          For all the talk about fighting privilege, speaking out and breaking silences are actually not what the left wants children of gay couples to do. Everything about my life is dangerous to discuss, because if I tell the truth about where I came from, I can be accused of homophobia (which has happened) and fired (which has come near to happening).

                          Children of gays, or COGs, are ready for a turning point. I recently ran a column in Daily Caller to begin a framework to understand what COGs stories, in our own words, can teach society about the stakes of redefining marriage. We just want to be heard -- and we havent, up until now.

                          The gay community raised us, sometimes with love, and often with a bit of inconsiderate self-interest. Too many of us were asked to keep secret how hard the whole experience was. Many times siblings turned against each other based on which brother or sister broke ranks and decided to speak the truth while others played along to keep Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad happy. After decades of decrying the pain of the closet, the gay community remains largely unwilling to uncover the true feelings of the children raised in their midst. Its like saying, I cant live a lie but my kids must.

                          The debate about same-sex parenting always seemed to degenerate into an insulting ritual, in which we had to listen quietly to other people scream at each other about us. Those of us COGs who were already past the age of thirty had to watch, with broken hearts, all the teens and toddlers dragged by gay guardians to rallies, knowing from our own experience how much pressure and stress must be involved. The whole debate proceeded with both sides acting as though kids of gay couples never actually grow up, get jobs, move out of their parents houses, and speak their opinions from an adult vantage point.

                          ..........

                          http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ing_point.html

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Good1 View Post

                            You will have to produce some kind of support for your apparently foregone conclusion. NOT that you're probably right, but just saying it doesn't make it so.
                            http://www.livestrong.com/article/15...s-on-children/
                            The american academy of pediatrics agrees with me. I'd post more links, but you won't read them. Suffice to say that I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree feel free to post some studies.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              http://www.livestrong.com/article/15...s-on-children/
                              The american academy of pediatrics agrees with me. I'd post more links, but you won't read them. Suffice to say that I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree feel free to post some studies.
                              Would you read them if he did?

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X