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.
What's the matter? Don't you realize the nllfs is responsible for much of the research out there indicating; lesbians are better mothers and lesbians never abuse their children. Hell, they've also proved beyond a shadow of a doubt men simply are not needed to raise happy, healthy, children. Face is, dude, you aren't needed. The new science says so.
Your bias is showing. That is not what NLLFS os about at all.
And your credibility was shot to pieces with your link to NARTH.
Look. The research has been pretty clear until just recently. Single parent homes are pretty much a lousy place to raise children. Resources is just half the problem. The other half is the strangers mom brings home and tells her kids is their new fathers. The minute that happens the chances of physical or sexual abuse of the children go up 50%. It's just the way it is.
So, two parent families are not as great as two parent families with two biological parents. Both parents have an incentive to see to the successful raising of their offspring.
How about homosexual parenting. Just what are the odds of both of them being bioligical parents, slim. I actually know of one lesbian couple that pulled that off. Most of the time, howerver, resources like this just aren't available.
Homosexual relationships tend to be short. Not every time, but most of the time. Face it homosexuals lead hectic lives that involve a lot of folks, even lesbians have more male partners in their lifetimes than heterosexual ones. This doesn't lend itself to stability very well.
Finally, what about role models. When I first went into elementary education some people were very supportive. One principle told me "these kids need to see a man show up for work everyday." Apparently her kids weren't seeing that. I'm still uncomfortable with the role model situation but it's true. Little boys and girls both need male role models. Do I really have to tell you mothers are also needed in the lives of children?
Is it really so hard to understand? Children are black holes of need. They need more than just two warm bodies in order to excel, grow, develop. Two mothers are no substitute for a biological father. Two fathers are no substitute for a biological mother.
.....and no, I'm not buying the research that tells us that homosexuals make better parents than two biological heterosexual parents. I'm just gonna call "crap" on that one. You believe what you want to.
You want to back up any of your rather prejudiced opinions about gays and lesbians with some actual evidence from reputable sources? (not religious anti-gay propaganda)
I'm guessing you don't know many gays and lesbians or same-sex parents.
I don't know about nature. I just believe human beings have found a pretty successful way to procreate and enculturate good members of society. We've managed to experiment with that model, and failed miserably. I just don't see the point in further experimentation.
The reality is very few homosexuals actually produce children. This is more of a political issue than anything. Democratics want to reward a valued demographic. What passes for the gay leadership out there feels the insitituion of marriage will bring them closer to something they will never have, full acceptance by the heterosexual community. I think it's all pretty sad really.
According to the 2000 census about a 3rd of lesbian couples were raising children and about a 1/4 of gay couples.
The reality is... you don't know much about gay people and have shown your prejudice in every post.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and you're not required to like or accept gay people or know much about them or bother doing any legitimate honest reseach on sexual orientation or same sex parenting, but if you try to pass your prejudiced opinions off as fact, expect to called on them.
don't blame the way I act on any one but me. I'm not being civil, i'm tired and find you disgusting. This has nothing to do with my 'culture' or anyone else here that shares my beliefs.
I apologize to those I've offended I normally hold myself to a higher standard.
I too get sick of all the vilifying crap some of these people pile on all gays and lesbians. When you see the statistics of divorce, infidelity, promiscuous unsafe sex, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, abortions, sexual abuse, rape, murder, incest, child abuse and neglect from "heterosexual biological parents", the hypocrisy and scapegoating IS disgusting.
I actually agree with this. The only way to settle this issue is to allow the states to decide for themselves. If california does alliow it, fine. If arkansas doesn't, fine. Let the people decide these issues not the courts or the federal government. I believe we should let democracy decide this issue.
If the "people" had decided on the issue of interracial marriage, it would still have been illegal in a lot of US states in the 1990's. 30 years AFTER the courts had decided.
So you don't agree with your own Constitution? Or the checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority?
Considering the fact that he/we aren't trying to change the nature/definition/purpose of an institution that has existed for a few thousand years in our culture, I'd have to say.........you're wrong.
Considering the fact that "the nature/definition/purpose" of marriage has changed a lot over the last few thousand years, I'd have to say... you don't appear to know much about the history of marriage,
Again, with the constitution. You do realize, strel, that the us constition was originally written to limit federal power. Until such time as the supremes weigh in on this, your assertion that the constitution protects gay marriage, something not envisioned by the founders, is just an assertion, not fact. Just how many times must this be pointed out to you?
Was interracial marriage envisioned by the the founders? How about the vote for women? How about the civil rights of blacks? Gosh....why the need for amendments if only that which was envisioned by the founders is valid?
Was interracial marriage envisioned by the the founders? How about the vote for women? How about the civil rights of blacks? Gosh....why the need for amendments if only that which was envisioned by the founders is valid?
This post is a misrepresentation.
As written by the founding fathers, the Constitution did not deny rights to women or blacks.
I've never mentioned religion and marriage. I consider myself an athiest. I tend to look at the institution in an historical/cultural context. As for "changing" anything, I don't see where your culture has the right to change mine. I just don't see that.
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.
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.
