Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And your qualifications for your attributions are...?
A 'normal' family consists of a mother and a father. Males and females have different attributes, as well as personalities, and a child needs both a mother and a father to have the best shot at growing up well adjusted. There are scores of studies on this subject.
This has nothing to do with personal prejudices, if indeed they exist, and everything to do with biology.
Then how do you explain why children raised by same sex couples do as well or better than those raised in "traditional" families? You can't can you?
Then how do you explain why children raised by same sex couples do as well or better than those raised in "traditional" families? You can't can you?
Well I think women tend to be more nurturing then men so it is 'possible'that having two moms would equal twice the nurturing which 'could' negate to some extent the advantages of having a mother and father.
Same sex couples in these studies are often adoptive parents and adoptive parents,[regardless of sexual orieintation],go through screening procedures that non-adoptive parents are not subject to so some studies could be skewed by comparing 'govt approved parents' who are same-sex with 'non-govt approved' who are not and wouldn't be allowed to adopt for a number of reasons.
We all know studies can be skewed intentionally to produce an outcome the 'studier' wishes to arrive at,or unintentionally through poor methodology.Studies should always be examined to ensure 'apples to apples' comparisons are being made.I'm NOT SAYING the studies you posted are skewed,just that studies can be found to support just about any viewpoint on any subject in the universe.
In a 'perfect world' I think two married opposite sex parents living together in a loving home with their biological children is ideal,dads are important and so are moms.......We don't live in a perfect world,I don't live in a perfect world.I raised two sons as a single dad through most of their childhood.I think they would have benefited had I chosen a better wife to begin with so they suffered some for my choices.They have both turned out o.k. however and better then some kids I know raised in the 'ideal' situation.Children in foster care aren't by definition living in a perfect world and any loving adoptive situation is going to be better than shuffling from fosterhome to fosterhome.I'm sure most children of gay adoptive parent couples come out fine.
I still don't understand the glee some express about this judges original opinion,regardless of their opinion of gay adoption.I already wrote a pretty long post previously on this thread but some are indifferent to what the potential consequences of what they are rooting for are as long as they agree with the result as applied in this 'one case'.Next month if the same judge rules that he feels that children benefit greatly from being raised in mormon households and therefore will only approve adoptions to mormon families,regardless of state law, most of those backing him on here now will be screaming about judicial activism run amuck in Utah and calling for his impeachment or recall.When a judge in california decides to ignore state law and only approve gay,atheist adoptions the fans of this Utah judge will be the first to be screaming about the unconstitutional actions of the commie pinko ******* judge in California.Lets at least 'try' to be CONSISTENT....
Keep in mind that the mormon church was a major funder of anti-SSM initiatives in the recent past.
Evening, jacqueg!
I'm not Mormon, nor do I belong to any other organized religion, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ, albeit not the best one. As such, I know that SSM is unlawful in the the eyes of God, but as a human being who knows many homosexuals, I have tough time condemning anyone for wanting to live their lives with a partner whom they love. I'm grateful that the job of judging others is already taken.
That said, I still agree with the judge's initial ruling and do believe that a child will fare better in an upstanding (loving and caring) traditional family. While a three-month-old baby won't care where he/she is, a teenager is likely to have to endure emotional hardships, including taunts and scorn from his/her peers, and they're very likely to be 'an outsider.' I've seen it happen time and again.
Then how do you explain why children raised by same sex couples do as well or better than those raised in "traditional" families? You can't can you?
No, I can't, and neither do I believe your assertion. My own experience with the children of same sex couples would strongly suggest otherwise. Perhaps how well children 'do' is different in different places on the planet, but the primary objection to placing kids in foster homes with same sex couples is that those couples are deemed, by all monotheistic religions, to be living an aberrant lifestyle -- one that is offensive to God -- and therefore is not a suitable environment in which to place or raise a child.
I don't think any reasonable person would question the ability of homosexuals to effectively love and care for the physical needs of a child, but the fact that they have chosen to live an aberrant and morally questionable lifestyle, does, in the eyes of many, make them unsuitable parents.
Just because a segment of society (and certainly not just the homosexual community) has decided to lower the bar on morality over the past forty years, doesn't mean that one should endorse it.
I'm not Mormon, nor do I belong to any other organized religion, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ, albeit not the best one. As such, I know that SSM is unlawful in the the eyes of God, but as a human being who knows many homosexuals, I have tough time condemning anyone for wanting to live their lives with a partner whom they love. I'm grateful that the job of judging others is already taken.
That said, I still agree with the judge's initial ruling and do believe that a child will fare better in an upstanding (loving and caring) traditional family. While a three-month-old baby won't care where he/she is, a teenager is likely to have to endure emotional hardships, including taunts and scorn from his/her peers, and they're very likely to be 'an outsider.' I've seen it happen time and again.
Whose fault is that? The one scorned or the kids of parents that don't teach them what others do is really none of their business?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... And ... gay and lesbian people are very much part of nature.
When a judge in california decides to ignore state law and only approve gay,atheist adoptions the fans of this Utah judge will be the first to be screaming about the unconstitutional actions of the commie pinko ******* judge in California.
Lets at least 'try' to be CONSISTENT....
