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.
Fatherless SINGLE PARENT homes, and usually of the lower income demographics... at least get the facts straight, if you're going to call somebody's statement "BS." Have you seen the studies on dual-parent gay families? There's one link posted above, and most other studies show they do just fine.
I understand, it is largely dependent on economic situation. But I still believe that there is no equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising children.
They don't have a clue. They're just mimicing stuff they read on Lesbos R Us.
As far as the study, it's not possible to have done a thorough study because children raised by same sex parents aren't yet old enough to know how they've turned out. A few are, but not enough to do a thorough study. The lifestyle of same sex parents hasn't been around all that long.
Now I'm going to say BS! I've known gay-parented families since I was a child, and I am now 35 years old... and yes, the ones I've known all turned out quite well (some more successful than me, and my parents were married until I was 20). This isn't a new thing, it's just more visible in society today.
I'd like to get this correct.......
If someone on the left uses Wikipedia for reference it's
If anyone else uses it, it's
I've seen others use this and people say it's just not the real deal.........hopefully you don't see this as a personal attack
How is this a left vs right issue? I'm one who has criticized Wikipedia, so you won't see me using them as a primary source... but I don't speak for EVERY liberal in the country, so everyone else is free to use any source they want. And I am free to discredit their use of it, whether they come from the left or right side of the fence. Where did you get the idea it was okay for one and not the other?
Btw, do you know what I mean by primary source? That means Wikipedia is fine as a secondary source, in other words to back up (or with the outside references) of another source. If I ever do use Wikipedia, I'll only do so in addition to another link - or at the very least, I will check their listed references for accuracy first. The site does have its purposes and doesn't always provide bad information, I just wouldn't use it for something like a research paper or as my ONLY "proof" in a debate. Does that make more sense now?
I understand, it is largely dependent on economic situation. But I still believe that there is no equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising children.
And you're free to believe that, but it doesn't change the facts... and even if it were "less than ideal," aren't many familial structures and situations "less than ideal?" It's ideal to have lots of money before starting a family, but people in the lower & middle classes can still raise happy children. Some also consider same-race couples to be ideal, but again there are many mixed-race and mixed-faith families that thrive. It's not like all heterosexual couples are perfect, anyway, so there is no guarantee of happy well-adjusted children solely based on man + woman.
Regardless, you are free to believe whatever you want, and you are also free to choose your own family structure. In the meantime, maybe you could respect the freedom of other families to make THEIR own decisions? I know some wonderful gay couples raising children, and see these kids are happy to be loved and cared for by their two moms/dads. Who are you to criticize what's obviously working for them? Personally, I try to refrain from telling other people how to live their lives & raise their children. Not my business.
The Times man of the year is the one who "for better or worse"most influenced events of the previous year, and there is no denying that Hitler did just that.....It is not a freaking Oscar.
Is this a joke? You don't trust Time magazine because they had a cover almost 80 years ago (a negative one) that said Hitler was the man who had most influenced events in 1938?
From your own link (which it seems like you didn't bother to read):
Quote:
On January 2, 1939, Time Magazine published its annual Man of the Year issue. For the year 1938, Time had chosen Adolf Hitler as the man who "for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year.
The cover picture featured Hitler playing "his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on." This picture was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a German Catholic who had fled Hitler's Germany.
But anyway, for anyone who wants to do a little research and has access, there are plenty of studies published in peer-reviewed professional Journals.
Here's a place to start to find the studies and literature:
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.
Ellen is awesome.
You don't trust Time magazine because they had a cover almost 80 years ago (a negative one) that said Hitler was the man who had most influenced events in 1938? 
