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.
I disagree. Now here is the part where you tell me my source is biased. Then I'll provide a source for much of the "research" you've seen that tells us lesbians make better mothers than heterosexual mothers. Then you'll tell me those hundreds of studies over the last 40 years were conducted by heterosexuals and they are the biased ones not the lesbians over there at nlls. {sigh}
source
And once again you post from an article from a religious anti-gay source.
I noticed you didn't post the actual link. It's an article by Focus on the Family. FotF is reknowned for it's anti-gay agenda and propaganda. It also has a reputation for citing misrepresentions of legitimate articles and studies and vilifying gay people.
And once again it "quote mines" from articles about single parents.
{sigh}
Here's an example of misrepresentation in the article from FotF.
The FotF article cites from an article by Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children"
"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents."
However Parkes actually stated:
"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships."
The FotF article also quotes from Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” "An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents."
But the the original source stated: "An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
Notice how they left out the part about "who have low-conflict relationships" or in a "low conflict marriage"?
That's called misrepresentation.
Everything you've written on this thread sounds exactly like the propaganda from some anti-gay religious group like NOM, NARTH, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, Traditional Values.org etc
Here, this link might help you in identifying the validity of your "sources".
This post is a misrepresentation.
As written by the founding fathers, the Constitution did not deny rights to women or blacks.
You're kidding me. The Constitution said nothing about rights for women or blacks. The previous poster was using the "logic" that the founders did not "envison" same-sex marriage in the Constitution. I said they also didn't "envision" the vote for women or civil rights for blacks...those were later amendments.
Unlike some of the more belligerent and vexatious homosexual radicals I have not once hurled a derogatory epitaph be it well deserved or otherwise. In fact I am not surprised or even disappointed in the lack of creativity and ingenuity presented either. The broken record mantra of “homophobic bigot†quickly becomes tedious to the point of boredom and might actually mean something if one placed any credence in the same tired old sources excreting it over and over again but I don't.
I suggest you follow your own advice because when these threads come along many homosexual radicals seem taken aback when they seem to discover for the first time that everyone is not as excited about homosexuality as they are.
Just why would you presume that. Just because I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed in order to reward a favored demographic of the democratic party doesn't mean I wouldn't love my son. Just because I'm not pro democratic party identity politics schemes doesn't mean I wish to harm homosexuals. This isn't iran. I wouldn't want it to be. I don't understand why so many liberals persist in this vein. It's tedious. At just what point can we discuss this issue as adults without all the drama/hysterics. Honestly, it's time some of you grow up. I mean that literally.
This is not a political party issue, this is not some scheme for one party to gain more power, it is a freaking people issue. You are so blinded by your pre-conceived notions of people based on their political party that you can barely see in front of your own face. I'm gay, and now I dare you to judge me. What is my religion, my age, my political beliefs, my favorite things to do, causes I support, people who inspire me? According to you and your oh so accurate judgments, who am I?
You're in Arkansas right?
Have you looked up the statistics for your state recently on poverty, rape, incest, child abuse and neglect, child molestation, divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, murder, domestic violence etc?
Perhaps the "culture" in Arkansas could use some changes.
And once again you post from an article from a religious anti-gay source.
I noticed you didn't post the actual link. It's an article by Focus on the Family. FotF is reknowned for it's anti-gay agenda and propaganda. It also has a reputation for citing misrepresentions of legitimate articles and studies and vilifying gay people.
And once again it "quote mines" from articles about single parents.
{sigh}
Here's an example of misrepresentation in the article from FotF.
The FotF article cites from an article by Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children"
"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents."
However Parkes actually stated:
"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships."
The FotF article also quotes from Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” "An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents."
But the the original source stated: "An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."
Notice how they left out the part about "who have low-conflict relationships" or in a "low conflict marriage"?
That's called misrepresentation.
Everything you've written on this thread sounds exactly like the propaganda from some anti-gay religious group like NOM, NARTH, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, Traditional Values.org etc
Here, this link might help you in identifying the validity of your "sources".
It isn't misrepresentation. In low conflict families goes without saying.
An example; from intact families with two biological parents without one of them being an ax murderer.
or another example; from intact families with two biological parents without on or both of them being heroin addicts with a penchant for skydiving.
This is an article on domestic violence in lesbian couples. I can't post all of it because of a series of considerations; copywrite protections, time, space, inclination (mine).
Domestic Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Statistics, Myths & Facts
The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort.
What is Domestic Violence?
Domestic violence is physical, emotional or sexual violence used by one partner to control another. Domestic violence is about power and control. One partner uses intimidation and control tactics to gain power in the relationship.
The Cycle of Abuse
•At the start of the relationship, things are wonderful. The abusive partner may be doing nice things and treating her partner like the queen of the world.
•Tension Building Stage: Gradually tension begins to build in the relationship. There may be minor incidents, such as yelling or throwing things. The victim, aware of what is coming, may try to prolong this period by “staying out of the way” or placating her. This stage can go on for a while.
•Battering Stage: Finally the tension breaks and an act of violence occurs. Many people think violent couples live constantly in this stage. The victim may try to hide signs of abuse, may lie about it, or may seek help from the police, friends or domestic violence services.
•Honeymoon Stage: The relationship moves back to the “honeymoon” stage. The abuser is remorseful and promises to never be violent again. The victim gets a lot of attention and affection from the abuser. The abuser may shower her partner with gifts. The victim sometimes feels that the act of violence was a one-time thing and decide to forgive her partner..........
In regards to the southern poverty law center. It's a political organization that has won a number of litigations against several "real" racist organizations like the kkk and the the white aryan resistance. Huzzah!
On the other hand I don't agree with their stance on arizona's 1070, the ten commandments monument, or even it's problems with the david horowitz's freedom center. I'm also appalled at the statement from splc's mark potok. It would seem mark has "issues" with ideas and concepts not of his own. I call this a free speech issue.
Quote:
In an NPR interview on April 2, 2010 the SPLC's Mark Potok said that pundits and politicians, such as Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Congressman Steve King, and commentators Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs bore some of the moral responsibility for hate crimes by using, and thus helping to "mainstream," the rhetoric of hate groups and conspiracy theorists.[73]
Last edited by Dutchman01; 04-03-2011 at 11:17 AM..
This is not a political party issue, this is not some scheme for one party to gain more power, it is a freaking people issue. You are so blinded by your pre-conceived notions of people based on their political party that you can barely see in front of your own face. I'm gay, and now I dare you to judge me. What is my religion, my age, my political beliefs, my favorite things to do, causes I support, people who inspire me? According to you and your oh so accurate judgments, who am I?
This is a political issue being used by the democratic party to reward a favored demographic for their support. It can affect my culture negatively. I don't support it. Why should I? It is not in the interests of myself, my people, or my culture. I'm not asking you to do that. Why demand it of me?
In regards to your question about my perceptions about youself; I do not know you. I do not presume to know you, tho you presume to know me. You are generalizing and stereotyping me. If you gave your post even a cursury look you'd see the irony in it.
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.
