study finds gay parents most likely not as good as once thought

[Bronze]

This is obvious. True parents are man and woman who biologically produced the child under marriage contract; gay parents are just parents by name, but their child isn't really their child, just adopted kid and recognised by the dumb law.

 

[Punk Hazard]

This is obvious. True parents are man and woman who biologically produced the child under marriage contract; gay parents are just parents by name, but their child isn't really their child, just adopted kid and recognised by the dumb law.

Your parents are whoever raised and provided for you. If you think being blood is all it takes to be a parent, you have a gross misunderstanding of what a parent is. If your biological mother neglects and abuses you, but another person raises and supports you properly, they're your real parent.

 

[Bronze]

Your parents are whoever raised and provided for you. If you think being blood is all it takes to be a parent, you have a gross misunderstanding of what a parent is. If your biological mother neglects and abuses you, but another person raises and supports you properly, they're your real parent.

That's more of a social definition than a real one. I'll give you an example: A father (Martin) who divorced his wife while she was pregnant, then the wife married to another man (Jack) and raised the child for 10 years; if father (Martin) wanted to see or raise the child, he could by the law. Why is that? Because he is the true father and not Jack.

Parent definition:

A female person whose egg unites with a sperm or a male person whose sperm unites with an egg, resulting in the conception of a child or the birth of a child.

An organism that produces or generates offspring.

Even if the mother or father abused the child, that will not change the reality that the mother or father is their real parent. Because they are the one who brought him/her to life.

Same concept applies to gay parents.

 

[nightwolf888]

Your parents are whoever raised and provided for you. If you think being blood is all it takes to be a parent, you have a gross misunderstanding of what a parent is. If your biological mother neglects and abuses you, but another person raises and supports you properly, they're your real parent.

Exactly. Blood doesn't make a parent. It's the bond with that child makes parent. I rather child a grow in a loving home of a same-*** couple then in the system or with a abusive hetro couple

 

[Angelic.]

saw the word texas. didnt read

 

[nightwolf888]

saw the word texas. Didnt read

lol but at least they have Dallas, Houston, Austin , And San Antonio as oasis from the rest of Texas

 

[slimreaper]

I'm sorry, but researches on homosexuals from BAPTIST PRIESTS is not reliable in any sense.

the author of this article is a baptist man named peter sprigs, and their is information about him on the site. if you are going to spend your time on the internet trying to convince people to hate gays, at least come with a reputable source that isn't biased.

alternatively, leave gays the **** alone.

You must be registered for see links

oh wow, a masters degree in divinity, served as a minister, surely his research is valid.

The author of the article didn't do the study

 

[LustyLover]

That's more of a social definition than a real one. I'll give you an example: A father (Martin) who divorced his wife while she was pregnant, then the wife married to another man (Jack) and raised the child for 10 years; if father (Martin) wanted to see or raise the child, he could by the law. Why is that? Because he is the true father and not Jack.

Parent definition:

A female person whose egg unites with a sperm or a male person whose sperm unites with an egg, resulting in the conception of a child or the birth of a child.

An organism that produces or generates offspring.

Even if the mother or father abused the child, that will not change the reality that the mother or father is their real parent. Because they are the one who brought him/her to life.

Same concept applies to gay parents.

Lmao. So dumb.

You people will do anything to justify your illogical prejudices.

 

[UltraPain]

OP I gave you legitimate studies from the CDC and university psychology departments on the negative health effects brought upon a social group by prejudice and your opinion is that only a small population are being effected despite the overwhelming evidence from numerous sources. Why else would a federal department like the CDC even get involved if it was such a miniscule population?

I recommended that you should get to know gay people/couples in person before judging, but you say you won't because you think you have nothing in common with them. You clearly have no firsthand experience or understanding of a homosexual so what grounds does that give you? Absolutely none.

The responses that you've given me are obvious excuses fueled with opinion (not fact) and dislike towards a group of people. You're being what we call "prejudiced". But the worst part about you is that you're totally oblivious to the fact that you are prejudiced, like most prejudiced people unfortunately are. Haven't you seen enough examples in human history where prejudice leads to destruction? The crusades, the holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and thousands more examples where millions of people were killed by simple differences in lifestyle due to minds like yours.

Never forget that fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate. Yeah that line might be from a fictional character but the philosophy is very much real. You should consider making a difference in your life by opening yourself to diversity and new ideals. It would make you a more wordly, more intelligent person.

 

[slimreaper]

OP I gave you legitimate studies from the CDC and university psychology departments on the negative health effects brought upon a social group by prejudice and your opinion is that only a small are only effected despite the overwhelming evidence from numerous sources.

I recommended that you should get to know gay people/couples in person before judging, buy you say you wouldn't because you have nothing in common.

Everything that you say are excuses with nothing tangible to back it. That's called being prejudiced. But the worst part about you is that you're totally oblivious to the fact that you are prejudiced.

Never forget that fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate. Yeah that line might be from a fictional character but the philosophy is very much real. You should consider making a difference in your life by opening yourself to diversity and new ideals. It would make you a more wordly, more intelligent person.

Firstly no. If I don't want to associate with flamboyant homosexuals, then I won't.

So basically what you're trying to paint is that any difference in performance between whites and minorities is based on white prejudice. Gtfo with that bs. You will never ever find people evenly represented in ststustical data, yet you claim tgat 100% of that is based on prejudice and not differences in biology and where people come from.

Ex. When the germans came to america, they came with great knowledge in piano making. It would be foolish of you to suggest that the reason there are a lot of germsn piano companies and not say black or irish ones, is because they were held down. People come from different backgrounds thst ma ke them better at different things in life.

You never hit me back with an answer to why black children from two married heterosexual parents do better if they are all being discriminated on for being black

 

[LustyLover]

Firstly no. If I don't want to associate with flamboyant homosexuals, then I won't.

Ignorant, though that's a given. Not all homosexual guys are flamboyant, in fact it's probably the opposite for the majority of them. Equating them with straight girls is straight up idiotic...though that's also to be expected from you :lol

 

[Ripple Hole]

Ignorant, though that's a given. Not all homosexual guys are flamboyant, in fact it's probably the opposite for the majority of them. Equating them with straight girls is straight up idiotic...though that's also to be expected from you :lol

I wonder how OP would feel in a cell with some ripped men
thirsty for man booty.

 

[UltraPain]

Firstly no. If I don't want to associate with flamboyant homosexuals, then I won't.

So basically what you're trying to paint is that any difference in performance between whites and minorities is based on white prejudice. Gtfo with that bs. You will never ever find people evenly represented in ststustical data, yet you claim tgat 100% of that is based on prejudice and not differences in biology and where people come from.

Ex. When the germans came to america, they came with great knowledge in piano making. It would be foolish of you to suggest that the reason there are a lot of germsn piano companies and not say black or irish ones, is because they were held down. People come from different backgrounds thst ma ke them better at different things in life.

You never hit me back with an answer to why black children from two married heterosexual parents do better if they are all being discriminated on for being black

I've given up trying to give you reason and education talks because no matter what I say you're completely unopen to the idea and unwilling to learn.

You DO need to associate yourself with "flamboyant homosexuals" because you will enculture yourself and LEARN. This is why anthropologists who study human culture spend years in a community. It ensures that they learn the values and outlook of a culture so they develop a more unbiased and balanced perspective.

You just said that no one can be properly represented by statistical data, but here you are sharing your "research".

Did you take a look at the research documents I sent you? If you read it there are 165 pages of info showing that yes, minorities do experience more stress than whites. I'm not gonna spoon-feed you this stuff. Take the initiative and go read it for yourself.

Your example of German piano makers doesn't have anything to do with racial inequality because German piano makers were never put into slavery, forced into slums, experienced prejudice, etc.

As for two black heterosexual parents vs homosexual ones: Could you imagine being a black gay man in today's society? People would treat you terribly for more than one reason and of course when compared with the data we've seen they would likely have less quality health as a result.

 

[Multiply]

While far from a perfect study as the homosexual sample size is small, I still think the argument that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone take a hit with these findings.

You killed your own argument. These 'statistics' are irrelevant AF.

 

[slimreaper]

You killed your own argument. These 'statistics' are irrelevant AF.

No the **** I didn't half wit. Notice the title says most likely. No data representation is perfect, but this is the best study we have. The science is still very much out, i'm just sharing these finding and yhe implications they have

 

[BlacLord™]

This study doesn't prove anything.

The amount of legitimate studies infinitely outweigh this Texan tripe that some dared to call a "study".

 

[UltraPain]

No this study is legitimate. Having homosexual parents leads to negatives in life.

Funny how all you dumb ****s blindly disbelieve anything that doesn't come from liberal media/areas.

And yall say fox news brsinwashes people

Yes, good, reveal your true hatred/bias and show us how illogical you become when pressed with overwhelming evidence against your cause lmao. You have nothing to fall back on except opinion and this one standalone theory.

Don't forget that the CDC and U.S. Department of Health have a completely different message with their studies and do in fact state that homosexuals face more societal stressors due to prejudice and therefore have less quality health (like any person facing those stressors would) as a result. Have you read the CDC articles I posted yet? I've asked like three times now.

As for your Fox News defense: Watch this documentary. Stop throwing uneducated opinion around and be a true student and LEARN from multiple sources. Even if you disagree with this documentary that's fine. At least challenge yourself to see something from more than one angle.

[video=youtube;P74oHhU5MDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk[/video]

 

[slimreaper]

Yes, good, reveal your true hatred/bias and show us how illogical you become when pressed with overwhelming evidence to your cause lmao. You have nothing to fall back on except opinion and this one standalone "study".


As for your Fox News defense. Watch this documentary. Stop throwing uneducated opinion around and be a true student and LEARN from multiple sources.

[video=youtube;P74oHhU5MDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk[/video]

I don't watch fox news, but it's become cliche to bash it instead of the arguments they make.

Overwheming evidence of what? Thats blacks and gays face discrimination? I'll let you in on some more ground breaking data... the sky is blue (Gasp!!)

Your fault is you are blaming the short comings of all minorities on prejudice, when that just isn't true.


Here is some overwhelming data you libs can never refute. Go find me any to groups of people represented evenly ever. Don't worry ill wait. It must be sll that prejudice every group faces.

You blamed slavery yet as recently as 1925 blacks have had higher two parent families and less divorce. As recently as 1949 blacks had lower unemployment than whites. Gtfo with your bullshit. Are you suggesting people are more prejudiced today than in 1949?

 

[Fresco]

Lmao, 200 researchers

You must be registered for see links

a letter calling the study out for being erroneous. Now that I've gotten the fact that the study is shady to begin with out of the way, let me provide a whole list of sources that contradict said study. From various medical journals, Psychology associations, court documents, etc

Research in some medical journals, one by Uni of Melborne and the other from I can't remember.

You must be registered for see links

,

You must be registered for see links

A

You must be registered for see links

document that has a shit-ton of academic and medical sources about gay couples being as efficient as straight ones. CPA

You must be registered for see links

on it, and a

You must be registered for see links

. UC Davis psychology

You must be registered for see links

backing up prior research about negligible differences. Australian Psychology Association

You must be registered for see links

finding that gay couples just as effective as straight ones, even WITH discrimination taken into account. Finally,

You must be registered for see links

for a four decade old study of Lesbian couples.

So what is that? 20+ studies if you consider all the sources in the court document, including official statements from Psychology Associations in three different countries, to your one study? On top of that, 200 other researches signed a letter calling it out.

But to the actual dumbass logic at hand: Its flawed to put a lens on sexual orientation and its effects of parenting when there are so many other factors that go into parenting, both family and societal. For example, are they less efficient parents because they're on welfare or is it because they're gay? Are they less efficient parents because they suffer depression or is it because they're gay?

In fact, the study points out ways gay couples face societal challenges, so the fact that you would use this study for your anti-gay agenda is just ****ing retarded, and your logic is contradicted by the multitude of studies out there anyways. I mean, the study pretty much points out, inadvertently, that gay couples aren't bad parents because they love the same ***, but they're more disadvantaged in a society, and thus, would be less effective at parenting. Thats more of a statement on society's treatment of gay people than gay parenting. But hey, this study doesn't matter because there's so many other studies out there that shit on it.

do you make these threads just so I can ether you?

 

[slimreaper]

Lmao, 200 researchers

You must be registered for see links

a letter calling the study out for being erroneous. Now that I've gotten the fact that the study is shady to begin with out of the way, let me provide a whole list of sources that contradict said study. From various medical journals, Psychology associations, court documents, etc

Research in some medical journals, one by Uni of Melborne and the other from I can't remember.

You must be registered for see links

,

You must be registered for see links

A

You must be registered for see links

document that has a shit-ton of academic and medical sources about gay couples being as efficient as straight ones. CPA

You must be registered for see links

on it, and a

You must be registered for see links

. UC Davis psychology

You must be registered for see links

backing up prior research about negligible differences. Australian Psychology Association

You must be registered for see links

finding that gay couples just as effective as straight ones, even WITH discrimination taken into account. Finally,

You must be registered for see links

for a four decade old study of Lesbian couples.

So what is that? 20+ studies if you consider all the sources in the court document, including official statements from Psychology Associations in three different countries, to your one study? On top of that, 200 other researches signed a letter calling it out.

But to the actual dumbass logic at hand: Its flawed to put a lens on sexual orientation and its effects of parenting when there are so many other factors that go into parenting, both family and societal. For example, are they less efficient parents because they're on welfare or is it because they're gay? Are they less efficient parents because they suffer depression or is it because they're gay?

In fact, the study points out ways gay couples face societal challenges, so the fact that you would use this study for your anti-gay agenda is just ****ing retarded, and your logic is contradicted by the multitude of studies out there anyways. I mean, the study pretty much points out, inadvertently, that gay couples aren't bad parents because they love the same ***, but they're more disadvantaged in a society, and thus, would be less effective at parenting. Thats more of a statement on society's treatment of gay people than gay parenting. But hey, this study doesn't matter because there's so many other studies out there that shit on it.

do you make these threads just so I can ether you?

I've already addressed the other 59 studies done. Try to keep up.