Two dads meet their newborn son

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377

"Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents."

So you'll admit you're talking bull now?

Gay marriage goes hand in hand with gay adoption, but not necessarily in all cases.



http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/a-non-religious-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html

I've taken this example as a non-religious case against gay marriage.

I don't need, or want anyone to start bringing up the oh-so-common excuse that "not all heterosexual couples look after their children the right way" ... This arguably a tiny proportion on global scale - the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold is quite alarming to say the least.

I'll also just leave this here.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=156530

"The author reports on 37 children who are being raised by female homosexuals or by parents who have changed sex (transsexuals): 21 by female homosexuals, 7 by male-to-female transsexuals, and 9 by female- to-male transsexuals. The children range in age from 3 to 20 years (mean = 9.3) and have lived in the sexually atypical households for 1- 16 years (mean = 4.9). Thirty-six of the children report or recall childhood toy, game, clothing, and peer group preferences that are typical for their sex. The 13 older children who report erotic fantasies or overt sexual behaviors are all heterosexually oriented."

It's much easier (and more logical) to form an opinion based on fact that blind conjecture darling.

So your high moral stance on saying that one should not support the meat industry is to eat chicken. Nice try. Calling bull**** (once more).

So, you're continuing to accept a premise that those who grow up without their biological mothers are inherently ****ed.

Here's some food for thought:
I went to school with someone who lost their mother very early on. They had their brothers and father take care of them and bring them up. At no point did this child stand out. Good grades, mature when they needed to be. Whilst I didn't get on with them they were pretty popular.

At no point did they seem to be at a disadvantage as a result.

But don't worry, I'll send them a facebook message correcting them, and tell them that they are inherent disadvantaged and that they are not the same as me.

So my brother being taken from his biological parents with learning difficulties who couldn't even look after themselves, lived in squalour and had already had three kids removed and been prosecuted for animal neglect was disgusting was it? Riiiiight.

By the way, he isn't damaged, before you ask.

I never said 'nature intended it', I just don't see why people are so keen to slam same-sex couples for wanting to become parents. I have a heterosexual friend with a young daughter and she's a terrible mother. She takes barely any responsibility for her child and openly admits she was an 'accident' (although she'll prefix that with 'happy' as an afterthought, if you push her on the issue). She's been the same way since her daughter was a babe in arms, so I will have to respectfully disagree with you, I'm afraid.

Data from early tests of 'maternal deprivation' are, at best, correlational and widely criticised. There are no reasons two men or women could not fulfil the role of providing support and stimulation for a child that a mother or heterosexual couple could.

So you think the meat industry is wrong, but support probably the most intensive and cruel area of it (poultry production), you think supermarket chains are wrong, but will shop at them anyway. You think puppies being taken early are wrong...but guess you'd take one for the right price? So really...you stand for nothing? Words..but no action.

Maybe you will let a child stay with an manically depressive drug addict who will probably starve the baby, so y'know it can bond with its biological mother, because clearly there's no way a child can survive without being able to do that.

I imagine you'll stand by your convictions when it suits, which I imagine is when it involves homosexuals wanting a child.

EDIT: Oh hey quoted you twice, didn't realise lol. Don't take it personally bro, I'd hug you if you were within reach (no homo of course).

How awkward that you a) thought anyone would consider that a credible source and b) didn't think anyone would actually look where you got the statistic from - it is a claim about children of lesbian mothers, not all homosexual parents. Don't tell me you missed that.

Illogical statement. Did you not sit GCSE biology in school? You're essentially denying biological norms to try and carry your argument. Same sex couples can't have children. Women have children. These sane sex couples adopt like many different sex couples do.

You haven't understood my point 'darling'

Stop being so patronising. Times have changed, gay couples can have a child. It's time you accept that fact.

Your point, as I understand it, was that children brought up with homosexual parents will be different in some way.

Your point was based on nothing more than opinion and an incredibly biased right-wing website.

I have provided unbiased evidence that completely disproves your point.

So...yeah.

No they can't. They can adopt but can't have. Neither can a single heterosexual man have a child.

They can adopt a child someone else has had but they cannot have one themselves. I didn't decide that. Nature did. Don't get mad at me for understanding this.

I have no issues with anyone adopting as long as they're decent people and as long as the child has been allowed to bond with its biological mother first.

Every couple-no matter their sexual orientation-who wishes to adopt,should be monitored.
I don't see why the sexual orientation of parents would stop social workers from making sure they are able to raise a child.
When raising a child,sexual orientation is irrelevant,all that matters is to give lots of love to the new family member

So what? My point still stands.

Even if there were a fully credible source out there with actual scientific studies, NO ONE here would pay attention to it - fact.

My point on children brought up in a gay marriage will be different in some way WAS SOLELY ME - not a website.

So you're telling me a child born with a single father, or a single mother will be the same as someone brought up in a "loving" gay family or a hetero one?!

God designed it so that only a woman can give birth with a man. So why should homosexuals be able to have children?

Ikr, the kid will be one of the few to have two parents there among the droves of single parents. So weird.

Slammed them? I've done nothing of the sort. I am pro nature and nurture. You on the other hand think only nurture is important. I am not ignorant and value both. Even if a mother doesn't want the child she should not deny the child early on. Of course extenuating circumstances can change that.

Many studies have shown how important it is. For the matter as well I don't think single heterosexual men should be allowed to adopt so soon either because again it deprives the child of a natural maternal bond.

Illogical statement. Did you not sit GCSE biology in school? You're essentially denying biological norms to try and carry your argument. Same sex couples can't have children. Women have children. These sane sex couples adopt like many different sex couples do.




If nature intended for 2 same sex people to have children, why can't they? Unless you have made a breakthrough in the field of biology then there is no chance of what you said happening.

I don't see the issues with same sex couples adopting but at the same time I think like with any adoption the child should be with its mother in the early stages and adopted after a certain period of time. The maternal bond especially in the early stages is important. To deny a child this is quite frankly disgusting and disturbing because nature and nurture are both as important and to dismiss one in favour of the other is beyond absurd.


Can't believe you wish to deny a child the right to its natural and biological mother who due to being his natural mother can nurture the child maternally in a way no man can (its proven the maternal bond early on can be key to development later) and you wish to deny a child this for what you believe are societal advancements in the modern world....

I find that quite disturbing.

God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....


(He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)

It is abnormal and unnatural for two men to procure a child in this manner.