Why wasn't there more outrage to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage? (suspect, school)

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Why hasn't there be more of a backlash to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage?....

By contrast, the public has basically shrugged on federal judges mandating gay marriage rights. Even conservative activists seem to have moved on. No talk of litmus tests for Federal Judges or attempts at Constitutional amendments. Republican candidates don't even talk about it.

I have had conversations with two religious Americans, one R.C. and one Evangelical, and their bottom lines were the same: it is only civil union and has nothing to do with "real marriage" as their god sees it.

I was rather taken aback. I thought it was very "funadamentalist", but then on second thought I can see that their opinions are so deeply rooted in religion that same-sex marriage is just a secular fandango.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Exactly. About 70% of people go along with peer pressure, media etc.

When someone regurgitates homosexual lies like “rights” based on a special type of sedual disorder - it’s very telling.

It is not a disorder. You can argue all you want and believe to yourself that it is, but it's not.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Again - exactly!
It’s intollerance hypocritically demanding tolerance.

People see or hear others get put down or hurt for speaking about the diseases and other facts associated with homosexuality.
Homosexual fanatics yell and threaten while calling people who object to homosexuality, “haters.”
They show bigotry with intollerance to other viewpoints while calling people “bigots.”
They fear nation health report statistics that show homosexuality to be harmful, by calling anyone pointing out such statistics, “homophobes.”

Being intolerant of intolerance is a good thing.

Haters can be spreading hate without even knowing it sometimes. I'm not feeling the love from you in this regard, so what am I to think?

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

As is forcing a believer to accept said taboos in the public domain.

A person can believe anything he likes. Is he allowed to make over the world into what he believes at the expense of others? Absolutely not. Not when it infringes upon the rights of others.

What you're talking about is basically a personal view of who's got the biggest religion (sort of like who's got the biggest penis) and every believer in this country thinks he's the one who owns it, so what he and he alone believes is what should rule the country. When he's told he can't be a little dictator that doesn't mean he forced to accept the taboos in the public domain. It just means he shares this country with other people and he needs to be a little more tolerant of those around him, whether he feel like it or not.

If I personally, because of my relationship with the universe, don't believe you should have a red corvette in your driveway, how would you feel about me not allowing you to own one?

[Clarallel]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Why hasn't there be more of a backlash to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage?
Generally, Supreme Court rulings on big divisive issues trigger backlashes. For example, many people feel that Roe V. Wade triggered a big backlash by taking a divisive issues out of the hands of elected state legislatures and instead was settled by unelected Federal judges in Washington. Similar backlashes were seen on controversial rulings on prayer in school, affirmative action, desegregation, etc.
By contrast, the public has basically shrugged on federal judges mandating gay marriage rights. Even conservative activists seem to have moved on. No talk of litmus tests for Federal Judges or attempts at Constitutional amendments. Republican candidates don't even talk about it.

What about the possibility that Roe v. Wade directly affected a lot more people?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

When someone regurgitates homosexual lies like “rights” based on a special type of sedual disorder - it’s very telling.

Unfortunately however when you are asked to tell us what the "Lies" are and show us that they are lies you tend to either run away and not answer the question - or you make up "lies" that no one has actually been telling.

Nor have you ever managed to establish that homosexuality is a "disorder" when asked either. You just shout the word "disorder" as many times as you can in the hope saying it enough will make it true.

And neither of these approaches is really valid or informative in a debate.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

People see or hear others get put down or hurt for speaking about the diseases and other facts associated with homosexuality.

Except that certainly where you are concerned that is not what has happened. Rather what happens is you do not speak about these "facts" so much as you have historically contrived to distort and cherry pick them. But this is "great debates" after all and you have brought up "facts" so by all means cite them for discussion so that we can once again show people not just what you are citing - but how you are distorting those citations.

Let us test your assertion that people who point at statistics are called haters and bigots. Cite the statistics and discuss what you think they show and mean. And I will respond to you openly - honestly and without either of those attacks or insults. Show us what you got here then. Show your hand. Because I already know what it is - and I think the people here would benefit from seeing it explored with someone who knows how.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

People want to appear loving but it’s actually cruel to encourage behavior known to be harmful, as homosexuality is according to the US CDC and medical doctors who warn of anal sex risks.

Here is one of the major distortions your rhetoric has been historically based upon however. There are _indeed_ risks associated with anal sex. However "anal sex" != "homosexuality. Your _entire_ position against homosexuality in the past has been to pretend otherwise however and to simply and consistently ignore everyone and everything pointing out that error.

In reality however anal sex is also a heterosexual phenomenon. And in fact anal sex is practices a lot less in the homosexual community than you like to pretend. In some areas it has even been shown to be a _minority_ practice in the homosexual community.

The second distortion you tend to engage in when discussing homosexuality statistics is to ignore the groups that skew the statistics away from your agenda. Such as lesbians. You do not consider homosexuality or homosexuals _as a whole_. Rather you contrive to cherry pick the sub groups that allow you to massage the statistics you want to misrepresent.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Apathy and not seeing or feeling the consequences of children being legally forced to be denied a mother or father. I haven’t heard any media focus on the fact that most school shooters did not have their fathers in their lives.

Again this is something you have a tendency to distort so we should consider your citations very carefully. Oh wait you did not offer any. Well we will consider them carefully if and when you do.

The fact is however that when discussing statistics on children without "a father in their lives" we have to normalise those statistics for the child having a single parent in the first place. Something I have _never_ seen you do.

Also since your homosexuality focus tends to be primarily, entirely, on homosexual men and you tend to ignore lesbians - it is comical that your "school shooters" assertion above is actually a positive argument _for_ homosexual parenting then. As if having a father in your life was preventative then having _two_ would be better. Shoot your own argument in the foot much?

Further again however "school shooters" are a statistical anomaly. Using them to make generalised statements about homosexuality across a population is a mathematical nonsense in the first place. You seem not to understand the first thing about how statistics at a society level do or should work.

Finally the "denied a father and a mother" argument is a circular statement of your position. You are the one asserting that having a father and a mother at the same time is in any way relevant. Yet I have seen nothing from you ever showing it is even a particular benefit. While actual statistics from the real world on children with two fathers or two mothers show that they not only fare just as well - but sometimes even better!

[SuperSoul]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

There is no right to marry a loved one. There is no right to any government franchise of any kind.

Rights are rights.....a government franchise is a privilege, therefore by definition it cannot be a right.

Marriage requires a license, therefore it is not a right.

Exactly!
It is so obvious that marriage is not a right - many people want to get married but don’t.
And the US constitution says nothing about marriage. Before he was found dead in his hotel room, the late Justice Scalia pointed out, they had no business decreeing same sex “marriage” into law...

• “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Everyone knows homosexual fanatics bullied their way into acceptance - and most people who haven’t been fooled by their emotional reasoning rhetoric - resent such cheating. All of the cheating and bullying in the world will NEVER change human anatomy and reproductive FACTS.

[SuperSoul]

The American Psychological Association originally defined homosexuality as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-II (DSM-II), then, was harassed into changing the definition. "Led by radicals like Franklin Kameny, pro-sodomy activists attacked psychiatrists across America, as Newsweek describes: “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos..."
https://www.scribd.com/doc/123568250/The-Born-Gay-Hoax
‪

So, the definition of homosexuality was changed from being a disorder to being normalized, not because of scientific research, but as a political move by harassing homosexual lobbyists.

The truth found in undeniable statistics is that actions based on homosexual practice make it a disorder (state of confusion) and even one that causes suffering by such confusion:

• 1. Homosexuality is not ever truly sex but involves fetishes, because sex involves the sexual organs of each, and homosexuality must resort to subsitutes... fetishes. (Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. ) Anal sex is such a fetish. Some fetishes cause no harm, but unfortunatley anal sex can cause anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infections.
  
  2. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract STDs than heterosexuals. ‪
  https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
  
  3. According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals.
  https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html
  
  4. Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices are more likely to have mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.
  
  5. Most babies are born healthy, without disorders, including without homosexual preferences. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed. This makes us less intelligent at birth than many other mamals, however it ends up in our best interest because along with more caregiving support, we are better able to adapt to environmental influences. Under various circumstances, some such adaptations result in the development of homosexual fetishes. There is no such thing as a gay gene - as mentioned in the first link above.
  
  Evidence shows that the development of homosexual practices are more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts
  
  "1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior. 2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences. (Note that the focus of homosexual fetishes is limited to select countries, globally.) 3. Older homosexuals often approach the young 4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior 5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions 6. Many change their sexual preferences 7. There are many ex-homosexuals"

The homosexual herd is trying to push its way into the public - to make this disorder that statistically proves to be harmful, be accepted. Don't fall for it. Love people, not harmful behavior. IT IS CRUEL TO ENCOURAGE BEHAVIOR KNOWN TO HE HARMFUL.

• "Tolerance applies to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error." -F. Sheen

[SuperSoul]

Children should have the right to not be legally denied a mother or father.
Yet, those supporting homosexual “marriage,” do not respect this right, despite overwhelming evidence proving the importance of both mothers and fathers, and proving that children have more problems when raised by homosexual parents.

Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage
Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage | Denny Burk

Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...

"Why Children Need Both A Mother And A Father"
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/soc...dren-need-both

"Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent” - Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.wordfoundations.com/wp-co...ed-stanton.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"
Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ563106

“Every child need a mum” – A gay man speaks out against gay marriage"
“I don’t want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing,” Mainwaring explained. “Somebody needs to stand up for the rights and needs of children in an age when the selfishness of adults seems to be trumping those rights.”
https://ynaija.com/every-child-need-...-gay-marriage/



Kids of Gay Parents More Likely to Suffer Mental Problems, Study Shows
https://www.charismanews.com/us/4833...ms-study-shows
"Researchers found that 17 percent of children with same-sex parents had serious emotional problems compared to 7 percent of children with a mom and dad."

Study: Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Face Greater Risks
The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...49089X12000610

"According to data from the New Family Structures Study, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana."

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
“I wasn’t surrounded by average*heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. *“Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to*overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity,*pornography, group sex, sadomasochism*and the ilk.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-federal-court

[monumentus]

Well a lot to destroy in those posts from you - though nothing from you as it is just a long stream of links with titles and no material or argument of your own.

But since most of it lies between very very wrong and "not even wrong" it is going to be very easy to do so. If the long form of my post is too much for you however then pick a single point at a time from it and we can hammer it out individually rather than the "gish gallop" you just attempted.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Everyone knows homosexual fanatics bullied their way into acceptance - and most people who haven’t been fooled by their emotional reasoning rhetoric - resent such cheating.

Except "everyone" does not know any such thing. I certainly do not as I have followed the subject of homosexuality worldwide for a long time now and I have seen no evidence of what you are claiming at all.

Are there _some_ people who campaigned for equal rights in homosexuality who used bullying? Sure! But that happens everywhere. On both sides. Of just about any issue. Is there evidence it _especially_ happened on one side of one issue? Not so much.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

All of the cheating and bullying in the world will NEVER change human anatomy and reproductive FACTS.

Which is entirely irrelevant as we are not talking about human anatomy or reproduction. We are talking about marriage. Human anatomy and reproduction does not have to have anything to do with marriage.

It is not a requirement. It is not a pre-requisite.

It is barely even relevant. People who are heterosexual who are sterile or too old to reproduce for example - have every bit as much rights to marry as everyone else. And so they should.

Or are you advocating now that old people and sterile people should also be denied marriage rights because their marriage can never result in procreation? Good luck selling that one.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

The American Psychological Association originally defined homosexuality as a disorder

Past tense. We are talking present tense on this thread here. Does it not concern you at all that in order to manufacture arguments to support your positions against homosexuality that you have to reach back into the past and pull arguments that do not exist any more? That would concern me if I were in your position. If it does not concern you - you would do well to wonder why.

The problem here is your argument - and theirs - is basically circular. You are trying to establish it is a disorder and your only argument for that is it used to be defined as a disorder. Which simply has a very basic result - that you and they can not justify why it should be a disorder or why it ever way. All you are left with is a circular argument of declaring it is a disorder because it was once called a disorder. Which _more_ than begs the question and does not at all hide the fact that you got nothing.

And rather than explain why it was - or should be - considered a disorder you fall back into this narrative of inventing bullying and harassment and more. Again simply ignoring the fact that - even if that bullying existed or not in reality - rather than in your imagination - you simply have not offered a _single_ argument for why it should be considered a disorder at all. This is - from you - a deflection tactic therefore and nothing more.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

So, the definition of homosexuality was changed from being a disorder to being normalized, not because of scientific research

Except there is scientific research - you are just ignoring it. We can discuss it if you wish. However what you are doing while ignoring it is even more egregious. You are ignoring the fact that this goes both ways. You are moaning that there is no science explaining why it was change _from_ being a disorder while ignoring the fact you and they have never presented any science _for_ it having been one in the first place.

You can claim therefore all you want that it was removed solely for political, social, or emotional reasons - but I would just throw that right back at you to suggest it was only _on there_ for political, social, or emotional reasons.

Which leaves us _exactly_ where you do not want us to be - and where I have tried and failed to get you to go. Which is discussing here and now - rather than living in the past - as to what arguments and evidence we have for considering it a disorder. And. You. Got. Nothing.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

The truth found in undeniable statistics is that actions based on homosexual practice make it a disorder

Well yes the statistics are undeniable for one very important reason. You have not yet actually presented them. Hare to deny something that has not been offered - doncha think????

The bigger problem however is that no one has denied statistics - rather than have rebutted _your_ interpretation of statistics. Because your agenda against homosexuality leads you inevitably to claim the statistics say things they simply do not. And when you can not defend those distortions you try to sell this narrative that we are denying the statistics.

As if people do not know the difference between denying a statistic and denying what you _do_ with that statistic. Not and never the same thing.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Homosexuality is not ever truly sex but involves fetishes, because sex involves the sexual organs of each, and homosexuality must resort to subsitutes... fetishes. (Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. )

Your errors here are numerous. The first is that homosexual sex _does_ involve genitals. So your definition falls flat straight away. The second is that homosexuality is not just about sex. It is about attraction to a _gender_. Which is much more than merely genital related. Gender level attraction goes to _much_ more than the contents of ones underwear. Do you think heterosexual men are only attracted to vaginas??? Or are there _many_ more triggers physically and emotionally that make up an entire attraction construct and dynamic?

The reason for this error is clear - because you simply ignored my post from yesterday as if it was not there which explained the source of not just this error - but most of the errors you (intentionally I suspect, which is why you need to ignore posts such as mine) make on this subject.

And that is simply that you insist - despite being corrected and rebutted time and time and time and time again - on pretending anal sex = homosexuality. Ignoring _all_ the evidence and arguments against that error including 1) anal sex happens in heterosexuality too 2) Many homosexuals do not at all engage in anal sex.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract STDs than heterosexuals.

According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those with homosexual practices are many times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals.[/quote]

There are essentially the same thing but once again the statistics to _not_ say what you are claiming they do. Mainly because of the lies you tell which I already corrected yesterday but - as usual - you ignored my post.

Firstly the statistics involved _specifically_ relate to men and _almost entirely_ relate to anal sex. So once _again_ you are conflating anal sex with homosexuality. And once _again_ you are contriving to only factor in the type of homosexual which give you the statistics you want. Ignoring - as you simply have to do every time - groups like lesbians.

Your attacks therefore are _once again_ against anal sex. Not homosexuality at all.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices are more likely to have mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood.

Here you make a simple correlation-causation error. You are in no way showing that such issues are caused by homosexuality. Further where there is a link we know that much of it has nothing to do with being hommosexual - or engaging in homosexual sex. RAther it has everything to do with how people like yourself treat homosexuals with hatred - lies - distortions and more.

For example you yourself pointed out how it was once called a disorder. Even though you fail every single time to establish why it is one. Then you act surprised when homosexuals have "Major depression during adolescence". Damn right they would. If you are told something natural and unchangeable about you was disordered or even hateful - you would have depression and anxiety too.

So it is a contrived conspiracy on _Your_ side here to do everything you can to make homosexuals suffer and be depressed. And then start acting like homosexuality is bad because of suffering and depression! You are not just trying to have your cake and eat it - but to bake it yourself too.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Most babies are born healthy, without disorders, including without homosexual preferences. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed. This makes us less intelligent at birth than many other mamals, however it ends up in our best interest because along with more caregiving support, we are better able to adapt to environmental influences. Under various circumstances, some such adaptations result in the development of homosexual fetishes. There is no such thing as a gay gene - as mentioned in the first link above.

There is a lot of nonsense happening in that paragraph too. For example you are throwing out that we are born "without homosexual preferences". First of all how do you even know that? You appear to be asserting it because you _want_ it to be true. Secondly however - what does it even mean to be "born with heterosexual preferences" either? You simply have no idea what preferences are there or not at birth. Homo _or_ hetero sexual. If anything (and it is a big if) we are born with _any_.

Further the "gay gene" nonsense is not something many people on _either_ side of this issue espouse. Despite it being explained to you multiple times in the past - there is a massive difference between saying homosexuality is genetic (which we believe it to be) and there being a "gay gene" (which no one of note seems to believe at all).

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Evidence shows that the development of homosexual practices are more linked to environmental influences than to biology. Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is genetic.. Even Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

As usual you speak of "evidence" and "research" and then cite none of it. Does it even exist? All you linked to here is essentially a blog post on a biased think tank. If you want to espouse evidence and research do! But please link to the _actual_ research (if it even exist) and not opinion pieces drawn up to look official.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

The homosexual herd is trying to push its way into the public - to make this disorder that statistically proves to be harmful, be accepted. Don't fall for it. Love people, not harmful behavior. IT IS CRUEL TO ENCOURAGE BEHAVIOR KNOWN TO HE HARMFUL.

Still once again living in the past with your "trying to push into the public" stories you tell yourself. Here in the present however it is already very much part of public and social and legal and political life. Unless you happen to be living in one of the few remaining places like Russia? There is no "trying" any more. It is already here and here to stay it seems. Gay marriage is being accepted in more and more places. Hatred and suspicion of homosexuality and homosexuals is declining. And recently in my home country of Ireland a referendum on the subject showed massive support and acceptance.

If you want to imagine this is a battle or war then do - but it is one you have _long_ ago already lost but seem to still think you are fighting a bit like the black knight in "Monty Python and the holy grail"

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Children should have the right to not be legally denied a mother or father.

Why? It happens all the time and many children turn out just fine. There are single parents all over the place for example. You are inventing a "right" without a) showing they have such a right or b) showing why they should. You are just asserting it to be some kind of ideal - and then automatically assuming from there that deviance from it is a negative.

But there are _many_ alternative parental configurations that work just as well - or often better than - a single man and a single woman combined. What about children being raised with more than two parents for example?

Such a child has maybe one parent of one gender and two of the other. Is that therefore not _more_ "ideal"? If not why. Why is one single configuration being imagined by people like yourself to be superior? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

despite overwhelming evidence proving the importance of both mothers and fathers, and proving that children have more problems when raised by homosexual parents.

Oh look - once again the phrase "over whelming evidence" used right before you present absolutely none of it. Anyone else noticing a pattern here??? Rather all you do is link to opinion pieces - blogs - and cherry picked people who you feel agree with you.

For example your link to a single child of a single couple "speaking out" is irrelevant. That is a _single_ personal opinion against which we can throw multiple anecdotes. You only imagine your single anecdote is powerful or relevant - ignoring then as you must the multiple espousing the exact opposite. Most children of homosexual parents simply have no issue with it at all.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...

That is a non-statement from you however. Every child benefits when the people who parent them are people who thrive. This has nothing to do with sexuality at all - or the number or gender or parents involved. It is simply a statement of the absolute patently obvious. If the people parenting a child thrive - the child is also likely to thrive. Duhhhhh.

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

"Why Children Need Both A Mother And A Father"
"Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent” - Glenn T. Stanton
"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"

A _lot_ of problems with these links. First they are not links to research facts or data. But to opinion pieces of a specifically religious flavour. The links make massive assertions based on _no evidence whatsoever_ from their very opening sentences. Such as "God established marriage to connect a husband and wife". You have not even shown there _even is a god in the first place_ let alone that it "established" anything at all. Or even if a god did exist - and it did establish stuff - whether things established 3 4 or 5 thousand years ago are still useful or relevant today. That "living in the past" issue I dealt with already twice above.

Unfortunately your links - like you - talk of research and evidence without offering any. Your first link there fore example. You seem to think that _you_ not offering research is somehow alleviated by linking to people who _themselves_ do not offer any either. That if you build a layer cake of enough people claiming research exists - that we will simply fall over and eventually assume it does?

No way! Cite - for once in your life - the actual research if it exists. Not people who merely mirror yourself in pretending it does.

What your links do is simple however. The assert and assume gender stereotypes that are simply not observed in actual reality. Such as the claim that mothers tend to be more protective. That is absolute bull. Parents of _both_ genders are massively protective - to the point of being willing to lay down ones life and even end it in the role of protecting their child(ren). It is simply an insult to each gender to suggest the other is doing these things worse or less. An insult you - again as per 100% usual - evidence with absolutely nothing at all.

I mean what absolute nonsense and insult it is to write a sentence like "Fathers prepare their sons for life." as if somehow mothers don't???? Absolutely poppycock from you and your links here.

As you yourself do however there is much distortion of 100% true statistics in these links. For example the claim that "Fathers keep children out of jail." is a very dishonest distortion of what statistics show. Jail time quite strongly correlates with children of _single parents_ and for many reasons children of single parents tend to stay with the mother. So you are moving the correlation to entirely the wrong place - where the statistics simply do not put it - and then building a massive and contrived causal leap from it to link it to your own agendas. For. Shame.