Turn on thread page Beta

Evidence Against Gay Marriage Adoption watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Law School of UCLA's Williams Institute published a study containing a quantitaitive anaylsis of children in same sex marriages. The study found that children of same sex unions were almost twice as likely to live in poverty than children of heterosexual marriages.

    -Excerpt from study---------------------------------------------------
    Poverty rates for children of same-sex couples are twice as high as poverty rates for children of married couples. Although gay and lesbian couples are less likely to have children in their households than are heterosexual married couples, children of same-sex couples are twice as likely to be poor as children of married couples. One out of every five children under 18 years old living in a samesex couple family is poor compared to almost one in ten (9.4%) children in different-sex married couple
    families.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is ample enough evidence for a case against adoption of children for same sex couples. It is also important to consider that when children grow up poor, they are also more than twice as likely to carry on the poverty trend into their adult lives.

    I'm not making the case that all children of homosexuals would end up poor, but the numbers speak for themselves. If children were twice as likely to be harmed doing a certain activity, measures would be taken to mitigate the harm. You don't stop all kids from the activity, but you create reforms. Reforms are what we need, and allowing same sex unions to openly adopt children has it harms.

    Link to study- http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...March-2009.pdf
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ahem

    When we calculate the poverty rates for all members of the family, that is two adults and their children, the poverty rate for lesbian families is 9.4% compared to 6.7% for those in different-sex married couple families and 5.5% for those in gay male coupled families.
    Therefore we should not allow mixed-sex couples to adopt, only gay male couples.

    Alternatively we could remember that being able to provide for a potential child is one of the criteria for adoption, while this study does not distinguish adoption from other ways a same-sex couple might come to raise a child, and therefore dismiss it on the grounds of dubious relevance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    The Law School of UCLA's Williams Institute published a study containing a quantitaitive anaylsis of children in same sex marriages. The study found that children of same sex unions were almost twice as likely to live in poverty than children of heterosexual marriages.

    This is ample enough evidence for a case against adoption of children for same sex couples.

    Reforms are what we need, and allowing same sex unions to openly adopt children has it harms.
    Really good study, props to the OP - a worthwhile read in this subject area :top2:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    people diminish the value of the word "evidence", like people who use "love" or "hate" too loosely

    note how it uses intolerance ("vulnerability to employment discrimination, lack of access to
    marriage, higher rates of being uninsured, less family support, or family conflict over coming out") as a reason for increased likeliness of having poverty in the LGB community...

    and you want to use this as 'evidence' against gay marriage adoption?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    people diminish the value of the word "evidence"
    Of course such a claim would never come up if it was something in support of your stance :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    note how it uses intolerance ... as a reason for increased likeliness of having poverty in the LGB community...
    As has been suggested by many on here in various threads, Intolerance seems to be a big issue - it would be foolish to disregard it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Of course such a claim would never come up if it was something in support of your stance :rolleyes:
    and do you have evidence ( :rolleyes: ) of this? a crap argument is a crap argument regardless of whoevers side im on... a prime example would be a recent feminist thread that posted a video about forcing retailers to get rid of "lad mags"... despite having the same views as one of the opposing people in the vid, the first thing i posted about was how crap he was....

    feel free to look through my post history for this feminist thread... it may shock you to know that i was telling the truth when i criticised the person who has the same views as me...

    (Original post by ufo2012)
    As has been suggested by many on here in various threads, Intolerance seems to be a big issue - it would be foolish to disregard it
    whats your point? what i said shows that op is going against the very source he uses...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Ahem



    Therefore we should not allow mixed-sex couples to adopt, only gay male couples.

    Alternatively we could remember that being able to provide for a potential child is one of the criteria for adoption, while this study does not distinguish adoption from other ways a same-sex couple might come to raise a child, and therefore dismiss it on the grounds of dubious relevance.
    Your unfortunately mistaken. Mixed sex couples, although in higher rates of poverty than gay male couples, offer something the gay males can't; a mother, I don't need to go into an essay about the psychological effects on a child without a mother.
    There is also no reason that same sex couples that choose artificial insemination would have lower poverty rates than the study suggests. So I disregard your comment as dubious, on the grounds that your wrong.
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    dopey thread, based on dopiness...
    people diminish the value of the word "evidence", like people who use "love" or "hate" too loosely

    note how it uses intolerance ("vulnerability to employment discrimination, lack of access to
    marriage, higher rates of being uninsured, less family support, or family conflict over coming out") as a reason for increased likeliness of having poverty in the LGB community...

    and you want to use this as 'evidence' against gay marriage adoption?
    All those reasons are possibly factual for why LGB couples are in poverty. That doesn't change the current issue. You can blame others, or you can look for solutions. Currently, there are no solutions. Reducing the occurrence of these type of adoptions will save children from poverty.
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Of course such a claim would never come up if it was something in support of your stance :rolleyes:
    Typical :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    All those reasons are possibly factual for why LGB couples are in poverty. That doesn't change the current issue. You can blame others, or you can look for solutions. Currently, there are no solutions. Reducing the occurrence of these type of adoptions will save children from poverty.

    Typical :rolleyes:
    it does... simply saying the bold doesnt make it true... your source states that intolerance is a factor for poverty, given that you used this source as the basis of your thread, i assume that you trust it... so then why would you bring more intolerance into this, when the very source you use mentions this being a factor? you are adding fuel to the fire while implying you are putting it out.. this is why this is a dopey thread based on dopiness...

    typical? have you not read my other post? crap post (yours and ufos) used to try and make my argument less significant than it actually is... if you have proof of my double standards then post it...otherwise dont post bullcrap in order to justify yourselves...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    it does... simply saying the bold doesnt make it true... your source states that intolerance is a factor for poverty, given that you used this source as the basis of your thread, i assume that you trust it... so then why would you bring more intolerance into this, when the very source you use mentions this being a factor? you are adding fuel to the fire while implying you are putting it out.. this is why this is a dopey thread based on dopiness...

    typical? have you not read my other post? crap post (yours and ufos) used to try and make my argument less significant than it actually is... if you have proof of my double standards then post it...
    Just because I sited the study, doesn't mean I wholeheartedly accept everything about it.

    The gay right's movement have tried to make their issue a civil rights issue, than re-branded it a civil liberties issue. Note the difference, a right from a liberty. They are not facing the type of intolerance that would hinder ones economic future, based on color and other obvious indicators of difference.

    Yes their liberties are be challenged, but this would not have an affect that would hinder ones economic freedom. So I doubt intolerance plays a large role in these stats about homosexual poverty.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    Just because I sited the study, doesn't mean I wholeheartedly accept everything about it.

    The gay right's movement have tried to make their issue a civil rights issue, than re-branded it a civil liberties issue. Note the difference, a right from a liberty. They are not facing the type of intolerance that would hinder ones economic future, based on color and other obvious indicators of difference.

    Yes their liberties are be challenged, but this would not have an affect that would hinder ones economic freedom. So I doubt intolerance plays a large role in these stats about homosexual poverty.
    it seems like youre unsuccessfully cherry picking things out of context just to justify your own intolerant views....

    i get the feeling youve been looking through sites, glanced over this link, thought it somewhat represented your intolerant views (not knowing about what i posted about), and then posted it here under the guise of evidence against gay marriage adoption.. now that its been shown that the link is not what you thought, you are defending yourself by saying the bold... am i right?

    the link goes against what you just posted, if you dont agree with it, find another... ideally also reliable...

    im also waiting for a quote showing my double standards...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    it seems like youre unsuccessfully cherry picking things out of context just to justify your own intolerant views....

    i get the feeling youve been looking through sites, glanced over this link, thought it somewhat represented your intolerant views (not knowing about what i posted about), and then posted it here under the guise of evidence against gay marriage adoption.. now that its been shown that the link is not what you thought, you are defending yourself by saying the bold... am i right?

    the link goes against what you just posted, if you dont agree with it, find another... ideally also reliable...

    im also waiting for a quote showing my double standards...
    When did I say that the study itself implies that homosexual adoption is harmful to children? I just sited the study for discussion on the possible implications. Correlation vs causation is important here. The study does not contradict what my thread is about, because it doesn't make any definitive statements, it simple offers stats to reveal a reality.

    I'm making a correlation about the outcomes of homosexual adoption and poverty. Weather it's true or not, it remains relevant and important for discussion. I believe I can find and that there is, more evidence to support my idea that same sex adoption is harmful to children, than you can offer to say that it isn't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    When did I say that the study itself implies that homosexual adoption is harmful to children? I just sited the study for discussion on the possible implications. Correlation vs causation is important here. The study does not contradict what my thread is about, because it doesn't make any definitive statements, it simple offers stats to reveal a reality.

    I'm making a correlation about the outcomes of homosexual adoption and poverty. Weather it's true or not, it remains relevant and important for discussion. I believe I can find and that there is, more evidence to support my idea that same sex adoption is harmful to children, than you can offer to say that it isn't.
    (not explicitly) when you wrongfully tried to use the link as evidence against gay marriage adoption, using kids growing up in poverty as your justification...yes correlation=/=causation, so please tell me how the causation here is wrong?

    your thread does contradict the study as i have stated in a previous post... and it offers more than just stats, my post was referencing what the study said...

    if there was, you should have posted it rather than this...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    (not explicitly) when you wrongfully tried to use the link as evidence against gay marriage adoption, using kids growing up in poverty as your justification...

    your thread does contradict the study as i have stated in a previous post... and it offers more than just stats, my post was referencing what the study said...

    if there was, you should have posted it rather than this...
    Well of course I implicitly imply that the study bodes well to my argument, that's the point!

    Once again, it does not contradict. Explain why you believe so. The reason it does not contradict my argument is because the study NEVER says that same sex adoption is good or bad. It provides data on poverty in the LGB community. None of the data provided would contradict my original post. The reason why I used it was because it correlates quite well to the idea that this could be negative for children. Once again, it correlates, it does not provide evidence of causation. The fact that they are gay doesn't mean they are destined to be poor or bad parents, but it does imply they offer a risk to children.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    Well of course I implicitly imply that the study bodes well to my argument, that's the point!

    Once again, it does not contradict. Explain why you believe so. The reason it does not contradict my argument is because the study NEVER says that same sex adoption is good or bad. It provides data on po
    l post. The reason why I used it was because it correlates quite well to the idea that this could be negative for children. Once again, it correlates, it does not provide evidence of causation. The fact that they are gay doesn't mean they destined to be poor or parents, but it does imply they offer a risk to children.
    then why did you bother asking me that question? redundant...

    i already did, read my previous post rather than making this into a cycling argument...
    regarding the first bold bit, i never said it did, once again, the reason it does contradict your post, is because of what i said before

    the last bold bit makes your 'evidence against gay marriage adoption' moot.

    it does offer a risk to children, like how poverty in hetero relationships can. it suggests that this risk is higher in the LGB community and references intolerance as being a factor... i understand what youre saying about causation, so tell me why you think those capable of forming a study (that you agree with) would form a causation that you disagree with... if you can, that will counter what i said above... think about why a persons sexuality would mean they are more likely to be poor... if you dont think its intolerance, what else is there?

    also post more of this evidence you claim to be able to find... if you could, you should have done this in the beginning, rather than just using a link that you only partially think is true only... hardly a strong argument..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    then why did you bother asking me that question? redundant...

    i already did, read my previous post rather than making this into a cycling argument...
    regarding the first bold bit, i never said it did, once again, the reason it does contradict your post, is because of what i said before

    the last bold bit makes your 'evidence against gay marriage adoption' moot.

    it does offer a risk to children, like how poverty in hetero relationships can. it suggests that this risk is higher in the LGB community and references intolerance as being a factor... i understand what youre saying about causation, so tell me why you think those capable of forming a study (that you agree with) would form a causation that you disagree with... if you can, that will counter what i said above...

    also post more of this evidence you claim to be able to find... if you could, you should have done this in the beginning, rather than just using a link that you only partially think is true only... hardly a strong argument..
    Just plain wrong. You can't use your personal beliefs to change things into semantics.

    I believe that they suggested, and only suggested since it's just a study, that such causations like intolerance plays apart because they are being politically correct. I don't agree. I explained why in my previous posts. This isn't a civil rights issue. Civil rights issue give rise to economic disparities like poverty. The gay movement eventually changed their slogan to civil liberties. Civil liberties do not have the ability to cause serious economic disparities, thus why the gay men actually aren't doing that bad. There's a difference between rights and liberties. This is why disagree with their particular conclusion.

    Frankly, it's late, I don't want to go on a research mission right now. The study I provided has all the information I need to make a claim, and the claim I made is relevant.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    Just plain wrong. You can't use your personal beliefs to change things into semantics.

    I believe that they suggested, and only suggested since it's just a study, that such causations like intolerance plays apart because they are being politically correct. I don't agree. I explained why in my previous posts. This isn't a civil rights issue. Civil rights issue give rise to economic disparities like poverty. The gay movement eventually changed their slogan to civil liberties. Civil liberties do not have the ability to cause serious economic disparities, thus why the gay men actually aren't doing that bad. There's a difference between rights and liberties. This is why disagree with their particular conclusion.

    Frankly, it's late, I don't want to go on a research mission right now. The study I provided has all the information I need to make a claim, and the claim I made is relevant.
    i didnt use my personal beliefs, i used the flaws in your argument, likewise, i think youre hung up on your personal beliefs in this thread...

    being the same as hetero relationships legally does not mean there is no intolerance, look at general views passed down from intolerant parents, communities etc (just because you have legal rights, doesnt stop this from happening)... if your family has a problem with you being gay (intolerance) and kick you out of the house while youre still young (having rights doesnt stop this happening), or if an employer doesnt let you have a job because youre gay (intolerance) and makes it look like he didnt hire you for some other reason (having rights doesnt stop this happening), explain why intolerance is not a factor with these...

    fine, next time you come to this thread and its not late, post your evidence then, ill check back later to see whether you meant what you said... your last statement sounds like youre scapegoating...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    i didnt use my personal beliefs, i used the flaws in your argument, likewise, i think youre hung up on your personal beliefs in this thread...

    being the same as hetero relationships legally does not mean there is no intolerance, look at general views passed down from intolerant parents, communities etc... if your family has a problem with you being gay (intolerance) and kick you out of the house while youre still young (having rights doesnt stop this happening), or if an employer doesnt let you have a job because youre gay (intolerance) and makes it look like he didnt hire you for some other reason (having rights doesnt stop this happening), explain why intolerance is not a factor...

    fine, next time you come to this thread and its not late, post your evidence then, ill check back later to see whether you meant what you said...
    If your parents kick you out for being gay, than you have an issue and that's unfortunate. Some things are beyond the governments control.

    Now, when it comes to intolerance that has economic consequences, such as the ability not be discriminated at work for racial or sexual orientation, it is actually a right in America. The right to work is considered a civil right, not liberty. So intolerance would not be a factor for this issue, because employers, although some may try, do not have the legal ability to discriminate against gays.

    You will try and say that they will do it in secret, but many corporations now have legally binding quotas or self established incentives to include all races and orientations. So intolerance towards a homosexual would be mitigated. Most importantly, unlike race, sexual orientation would not be obvious(Unless you believe in stereotypes), this works in the favour of homosexual individuals, so once again, less likely poverty would be caused by intolerance.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    If your parents kick you out for being gay, than you have an issue and that's unfortunate. Some things are beyond the governments control.

    Now, when it comes to intolerance that has economic consequences, such as the ability not be discriminated at work for racial or sexual orientation, it is actually a right in America. The right to work is considered a civil right, not liberty. So intolerance would not be a factor for this issue, because employers, although some may try, do not have the legal ability to discriminate against gays.

    You will try and say that they will do it in secret, but many corporations now have legally binding quotas or self established incentives to include all races and orientations. So intolerance towards a homosexual would be mitigated. Most importantly, unlike race, sexual orientation would not be obvious(Unless you believe in stereotypes), this works in the favour of homosexual individuals, so once again, less likely poverty would be caused by intolerance.
    the examples i gave (both family based and job based like your source gives) could be reason enough for poverty, you havent even tried to show how intolerance is not a factor here... you essentially just said its unfortunate regarding the family, and repeated the same garbage for the job...

    legally binding quotas mean nothing more than simply having the existence of gay people in your company, nothing more... what quotas are there? if you lived in a town with no gay people in it or no one is interested in that job (possible) how does a company fulfill its quota? the same applies with incentives, hire a gay guy, give him some crap job, and enjoy the incentive (that doesnt mean everyone will take the incentive either), both do not prove that intolerance plays no factor... your last statement does not actually disprove intolerance being a factor either... even if you did manage to convince me that it is impossible to have intolerance in a job, you did a crap job justifying intolerance not being a factor with my first example

    again, i will be waiting for your evidence, while youre at it, it would be nice to get some links about these incentives and quotas being legally binding
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    the examples i gave (both family based and job based like your source gives) could be reason enough for poverty, you havent even tried to show how intolerance is not a factor here... you essentially just said its unfortunate regarding the family, and repeated the same garbage for the job...

    legally binding quotas mean nothing more than simply having the existence of gay people in your company, nothing more... what quotas are there? if you lived in a town with no gay people in it or no one is interested in that job (possible) how does a company fulfill its quota? the same applies with incentives, hire a gay guy, give him some crap job, and enjoy the incentive (that doesnt mean everyone will take the incentive either), both do not prove that intolerance plays no factor... your last statement does not actually disprove intolerance being a factor either... even if you did manage to convince me that it is impossible to have intolerance in a job, you did a crap job justifying intolerance not being a factor with my first example

    again, i will be waiting for your evidence, while youre at it, it would be nice to get some links about these incentives and quotas being legally binding
    What I said about the job was far from garbage.

    Quotas are better than nothing, they help mitigate the discrimination, you should be supporting it, not bashing it. For minorities there are affirmative action laws and now fair hiring laws for gays and women.

    Well if I did convince you, than I did my job. I like how you just ignored my main argument. Homosexuality is not an obviously observable thing. The idea that employers are quipped with a type of "gay-dar" to detect homosexuals is absurd. The discrimination is almost a non issue in this case. There is another reason for the poverty, not discrimination.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DentalPlan4lisa)
    What I said about the job was far from garbage.

    Quotas are better than nothing, they help mitigate the discrimination, you should be supporting it, not bashing it. For minorities there are affirmative action laws and now fair hiring laws for gays and women.

    Well if I did convince you, than I did my job. I like how you just ignored my main argument. Homosexuality is not an obviously observable thing. The idea that employers are quipped with a type of "gay-dar" to detect homosexuals is absurd. The discrimination is almost a non issue in this case. There is another reason for the poverty, not discrimination.
    nonetheless you didnt answer me, you just repeated yourself

    "better than nothing" does not disprove intolerance nor does "mitigating the discrimination", that only refers to severity... what did i ignore exactly?
    i asked why you disagree with what the study says is a cause, and ive yet to see any significant point from you, rather you try to weasel whatever justification you can... and thanks for ignoring my point...i repeat, even if i did agree with you regarding jobs, you still did a crap job regarding my first example... the study mentions various example factors of intolerance, disprove all of them and ill concede my argument... you continually talking about civil rights and employment doesnt mean you squashed the intolerance causation... discrimination in the workplace is not the only source of intolerance... do you understand?

    if youre still awake how about getting me some evidence that you claim to be able to find? you did say that didnt you? or are you a liar? would be nice to get that quota/incentive bit too... i will keep mentioning this you know...

    looking at your posts in this thread, it seems you disagree with the study for no reason other than bigotry...
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.