The article that I linked goes on to say that there are flaws in these studies and these studies have not been conducted over an extended time period.

[FONT='Trebuchet MS',Arial]Barbara Dafoe Whitehead is co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. An award-winning journalist, Whitehead writes about social and cultural issues for many publications. She is also the author of The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitment to Marriage and Family. Whitehead studied at Columbia University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow and earned a Ph.D. in American social history from the University of Chicago. [/font]



As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead shows in her book The Divorce Culture, as America liberalized its divorce laws and loosened its taboo against divorce in the late 1960s, many child-welfare professionals argued that "the happiness of individual parents, rather than an intact marriage, was the key determinant of children’s family well-being." It would then follow that if divorce made the parents happier, the children would be happier too. In the years since, however, that theory has dashed itself against reality. Many studies have shown that children of divorce suffer higher rates of depression, behavioral problems, learning and developmental problems, and economic insecurity. Divorce also tends to damage their ability to forge attachments of their own, both in family and at work. It is indisputable that the dramatic change in family structure, from having both parents in the home to having only one, has done tremendous harm to the children of this country.

It is possible that the children involved in gay adoption would suffer no noticeable long-term negative effects. But it is not worth the risk. Given what we know about the results of one major change in family structure, our society should be, at the very least, reluctant to tolerate another one. The experience of single-parent families demonstrates that children are generally much better off in a household headed by a man and a woman. Since gay adoption deviates from that, it should be banned.

That is just a quote from the same full of crap article.

Please present evidence from a reliable medical, psychology, or adoption authority that agrees with the assertion that ALL of these studies were flawed.

It is possible that the children involved in gay adoption would suffer no noticeable long-term negative effects. But it is not worth the risk. Given what we know about the results of one major change in family structure, our society should be, at the very least, reluctant to tolerate another one.

This is coming from a Doctor that is co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. An award-winning journalist.

LOL, that precedent was set by the supreme court, cause of the testomny of a Doctor who said a fetuse isnt a human. Who then in turn has made a fortune performing abortions since.




You sure do know how to twist words. it is irresponcible for her to be pregnant to BEGIN with. If one is considering abortion as a option, responcibility has already long left the table.

Call me quirky, but I seem to recall lots of other testimony, too.

A woman is under no legal obligation to bear children she doesn't want and has no intention of caring for. Forcing her to do so is the height of irresponsibility.

What is sad is this is the state of the evil world in which we live. People no longer even have natural effection for their children.

People who want families do have affection for their children (at least most do).

Women who don't want children usually don't have affection for an unwanted fetus.

There is a difference, Grace.