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.
"Generally speaking. Who is speaking anyway? " May even fare better"----from a general study done by who? People with an agenda to prove it? We are expected to accept silly studies done by silly people being paid for it in where---universities, that get money to do the study? OOOKKKAAAYYYYYY"
No. By hundreds of thousands of health professionals who actually know what they are talking about because they use evidence instead of parroting prejudiced ignorant nonsense:
"Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is important for parents to understand that it is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:
Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."
"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
"Overall, the belief that children of lesbian and gayparents suffer deficits in personal development has no empirical foundation. .....
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003)."
The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim. Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1).
Research has not identified any gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation). Our analysis confirms an emerging consensus among prominent researchers of fathering and child development. The third edition of Lamb's (1997) authoritative anthology directly reversed the inaugural volume's premise when it concluded that "very little about the gender of the parent seems to be distinctly important" (p. 10). Likewise, in Fath-erneed, Pruett (2000), a prominent advocate of involved fathering, confided, "I also now realize that most of the enduring parental skills are probably, in the end, not dependent on gender" (p. 18).
For those who are interested in evidence on gay and lesbian parents, (and not uneducated prejudiced personal opinions) here is a review of most of the research:
I think it's more accurately called capitalism, but both communism and capitalism have the inherent flaws of being amoral and Godless.
By the very nature of a secular government/economy, it very well should be Godless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
Let the free market handle it. If people don't like this business then it won't stay in business. Case closed. Simple really.
So when a business owner breaks any law, we should let the free market handle it instead of cracking down on said violatons? What's the point of having laws if we're not going to actually enforce them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
There were Christians who used the Bible and the "Curse of Ham' to convince themselves that being black was sinful so they could justify slavery.
Don't forget about left-handedness, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
By opening a business to the public you are required to follow the law. Don't like the law? Fight to have it changed.
No. By hundreds of thousands of health professionals who actually know what they are talking about because they use evidence instead of parroting prejudiced ignorant nonsense:
I just think about the level of hate and anger that would descend upon any research group, that dared to report any evidence contrary to what LGBT groups want to hear on this subject. I guess is they would be Chick-Filleted
I just think about the level of hate and anger that would descend upon any research group, that dared to report any evidence contrary to what LGBT groups want to hear on this subject. I guess is they would be Chick-Filleted
If their scientific method was flawed, then it'll be pointed out as such.
There's plenty of studies that I don't like the findings of, but accept them because their methods and testing were pretty flawless.
So when a business owner breaks any law, we should let the free market handle it instead of cracking down on said violatons? What's the point of having laws if we're not going to actually enforce them?.
What exactly are we talking about here? Are business owners not allowed to decline work orders for things that are offensive or not of interest to them?
Let's say a sign manufacturer was asked to create an animated neon sign that depicted, what the owner thought, was an immoral or indecent sexual act, or a sign with racially offensive or vulgar language, is the shop owner not allowed to decline the work? Can a tattoo parlor not decline a request to tattoo very young children or ink vulgar tattoos? Can a portrait painter not turn down any request for work that he/she does not wish to do? Or are we at the point where you open a business and you have no personal choice in which jobs you want to accept?
What exactly are we talking about here? Are business owners not allowed to decline work orders for things that are offensive or not of interest to them?
Let's say a sign manufacturer was asked to create an animated neon sign that depicted, what the owner thought, was an immoral or indecent sexual act, or a sign with racially offensive or vulgar language, is the shop owner not allowed to decline the work? Can a tattoo parlor not decline a request to tattoo very young children or ink vulgar tattoos? Can a portrait painter not turn down any request for work that he/she does not wish to do? Or are we at the point where you open a business and you have no personal choice in which jobs you want to accept?
He turned down the order because of sexual orientation of the patrons. In Colorado, doing so is against the law.
What exactly are we talking about here? Are business owners not allowed to decline work orders for things that are offensive or not of interest to them?
Let's say a sign manufacturer was asked to create an animated neon sign that depicted, what the owner thought, was an immoral or indecent sexual act, or a sign with racially offensive or vulgar language, is the shop owner not allowed to decline the work? Can a tattoo parlor not decline a request to tattoo very young children or ink vulgar tattoos? Can a portrait painter not turn down any request for work that he/she does not wish to do? Or are we at the point where you open a business and you have no personal choice in which jobs you want to accept?
Did that sign manufacturer make the same sign for someone else, and denied to make it for someone he didn't like?
That is what THIS baker did.
There are laws in every state as to the age that is legal to get tattooed. By tattooing a child the artist would be breaking the law. If the artist inks vulgar tatts for one client, but refuses to do the same for another that is discrimination.
This baker makes cakes for one person, but not the other based on sexual orientation.
If he didn't make wedding cakes at all, no one could force him to.
If their scientific method was flawed, then it'll be pointed out as such.
There's plenty of studies that I don't like the findings of, but accept them because their methods and testing were pretty flawless.
Maybe you aren't a militant LGBT person, who goes out of their way to publicly harass, intimidate and humiliate people and organizations that you think don't agree with or support your lifestyle?
I just think about the level of hate and anger that would descend upon any research group, that dared to report any evidence contrary to what LGBT groups want to hear on this subject. I guess is they would be Chick-Filleted
The peer-review process is designed to show up research that isn't methodologically sound, so it usually doesn't get published in any reputable academic Journal.
Occasionally some rather flaky research papers get though in some of the lesser ranked Journals if the editors don't conduct a proper peer-review process- which can take up to a year or so. Look at what happened to Mark Regnerus recently and his paper on his extremely flawed study funded by religious anti-gay groups who wanted something they could use against gay and lesbian parents in an election year. It was rushed through by the Journal's editor. It wasn't reviewed by anyone with expertise in the field and two 'reviewers' were actually associated with the studyand Regnerus - which is highly unethical. The study's sampling was flawed to the point of making it useless and misleading and Regnerus's 'conclusions' were completely unsupported by the evidence. It backfired badly and there is now an investigation into scientific misconduct.
Of course that didn't stop anti-gay groups like NOM and the FRC from gleefully using it as propaganda and making all sorts of deceitful claims about it.
Last edited by Ceist; 08-01-2012 at 11:01 AM..
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.
"
