I’m highly dubious of any study suggesting “no difference” in whether children raised in this, that or another type of home vs. a traditional home.


However, I would caution that, IMO, what we might consider “traditional” families (Mom, Dad, 2.5 children and Rex the dog living behind a picket fence) is, in fact a fairly new construct and is itself deeply dysfunctional.


When I say “traditional” family, I mean what I consider to be a true traditional family – in which an extended network of relatives – the tribe or clan, if you will – is directly and actively involved in the child rearing process.


To say that an isolated couple – dealing with all the stresses of simply trying to make a living – can also effectively raise children without a significant and readily present support network is, IMO, ignorant to the point of being insane.


And I think a quick look at our society – with all the divorce, domestic dysfunction, isolation, apathy, and everybody needing medication and therapy – bears stark testimony to that.


In summary, I don’t think it was "them thar queer folk what done broke the family." I think “the family” was a broken vessel in this society long before the issue of gay parenting ever became a talking point.

It's funny how the constitution and American concepts don't apply to gay people.
We live in a society of "equality" and "innocent until proven guilty".
"Prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt".

But here, the courts have explicitly stated that for gays, we have to PROVE we are innocent, and until then they are going ASSUME we are guilty of not providing sufficient homes because we have not satisfied their "doubt" that we do not.

There is NO EVIDENCE that shows that gays provide inferior homes. NONE. NO research concludes that.

And we DO have research which demonstrates the opposite. That gay homes are just as good.
But in the end, gays have to prove we are innocent, beyond doubt, because we are assumed guilty!

Gotta love America!

That's part of the funny thing about all this.
STRAIGHT single parents can adopt. No problems.

But the "single parent" crap is used EXCLUSIVELY against gays.

Another example where the white folk don't need to know how to read, but the "single parent" excuse is used against the gays.

And the other funny thing is that "single parent" is crap when you look at gay COUPLES.
Compare gay COUPLES to straight COUPLES.
Gay SINGLE parents to straight SINGLE parents.


The court chose to deliberately ignore the ACTUAL CONCLUSIONS of the research, inserting its OWN prejudice in assuming gay parents were inferior based on NO evidence, and ignoring the evidence which shows we make just as good parents.

Quote:

www.apa.org

Specific link? Where are the testing procedures? Sample populations? Percent error?

Quote:

What is your source for assuming there are no detriments to single parenthood?? Browse the US Census Bureau

Quote:

Census Bureau Home Page and you will find there are consistent and undeniable DISadvantages for children raised in one parent families

Okay, bad example, but single parenting is not the same as a same sex couple, especially considering what I said before about gender roles being more of a factor than sex.

How would you interpret them?

Actually, antithesis, the reason the government is "concluding" that very little research has been done (in spite of evidence to the contrary) is because they are staunchly anti-gay now. They have already tried to reverse gay marriage in that country (though it failed). Of course they're distancing themselves from studies that prove them wrong.

I'm sorry, but didn't I just acknowledge that?
And then point out that you need to compare gay SINGLE parents to straight SINGLE parents, and gay COUPLES to straight COUPLES?

All you do is talk in circles and repeat yourself, ignoring people who point out why you are wrong.

Can you explain to me why SINGLE straight parents are allowed to adopt, and single gay parents are not?


What is truly selfish is your idiotic desire to keep gays from adopting, even though that would mean MORE ORPHANS who don't have parents.
Now THAT is selfish!

Giving a gay couple a kid to adopt when they can care for the child is not "selfish". DENYING him that opportunity based on your prejudice is.


Amazing how quickly you change the subject.
Can you point to ANY study which shows that a man and a woman are superior to two men or two women?


"bigotted"? I am the one espousing EQUALITY and a HOME for orphans.
And THAT is "bigotted"?
You've got your head so far up your ass you can see your tonsils!

And for the record, the fact that straights have raised kids for centuries IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING regarding gay capability to raise kids.

That's like trying to compare apple sauce, which has been served for centuries, to orange juice which has been expressly forbidden during that time due to prejudice and bigotry.