Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

smash

cowzerp wrote: »

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

Pretty silly statement. There's millions of people who can't have babies, they get IVF to help them. Because they're physically incapable should they be denied the opportunity?

cowzerp wrote: »

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

There is absolutely no guarantee, especially with how progressive the world has become.

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

Why should the keep it inside their own rooms?

hooradiation

cowzerp wrote: »

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

If "but the children might be bullied!" is the criteria we're using then no child would ever be adopted.

Try thinking through the things you say before you say them.

cowzerp

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

I didn't get bullied

I did get slagged because of my mum's name
:rolleyes:

It's stupid to enforce this kind of bigotry and pretend it's all about the children getting bullied

Seachmall

bluewolf wrote: »

I did get slagged because of my mum's name

Same here, and with my surname it was guaranteed I'd be picked on.

The law should have been there to ensure my father never passed on his family name in order to protect his offspring from 10 year old morons.

Because that's clearly the most logical approach to it.

AnonoBoy

I was pretty sure the Helen Lovejoy "Won't Somebody Think of the Children" picture had defeated the kids will be bullied argument long ago.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

thats true actually....so infertile women should not be allowed to adopt in case their child is slagged for having an infertile mammy :rolleyes: Better tell my own mother to send my adopted brother back so, she's a fraud I tell you, a fraud


I love people who say things like, "I'm not being a bitch but..." or "I'm not a racist but..." or "I'm not homphobic but..." - they usually follow up with a bitchy/racist/homophobic statement. When you think about it, if you genuinely believe that you are being reasonable, then why do you feel the need to preface your statement with a get out of jail free card?

Sonics2k

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't get bullied

I did get slagged because of my mum's name
:rolleyes:

It's stupid to enforce this kind of bigotry and pretend it's all about the children getting bullied

I got bullied because I had a really silly/stupid first name (sounded far too much like a girls name), and eventually changed my name at about 10

cowzerp

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't get bullied

I did get slagged because of my mum's name
:rolleyes:

It's stupid to enforce this kind of bigotry and pretend it's all about the children getting bullied

I was not saying that was the reason why they should not have kids, it is weird and unnatural that's why.

AnonoBoy

cowzerp wrote: »

I was not saying that was the reason why they should not have kids, it is weird and unnatural that's why.

Why is it weird?

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

it is weird and unnatural that's why.

Insulin injections are "unnatural".
Engaging in furry cosplay is "weird".

Neither should be illegal.

Sonics2k

cowzerp wrote: »

I was not saying that was the reason why they should not have kids, it is weird and unnatural that's why.

Ah, so you're an idiot. Fair enough.

I suppose you also believe that single parents should have their child taken away? Maybe father's should have a child taken away, after all it's hardly 'natural'.

How about sterile couples? I'm guessing they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. It's obviously unnatural.

So, what it basically comes down to is this. You're a bigot, have no real understanding and a totally misinformed view, and are scared of what you don't know. Therefore it's weird and unnatural.

Out of curiosity, do you take painkillers after a bout in the ring? Because those are totally natural, right?

Pushtrak

cowzerp wrote: »

I was not saying that was the reason why they should not have kids, it is weird and unnatural that's why.

I'd suggest you stop using your PC, any technology, medicine may have to go. You might have to go live with the Amish.

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

Pretty silly statement. There's millions of people who can't have babies, they get IVF to help them. Because they're physically incapable should they be denied the opportunity?


There is absolutely no guarantee, especially with how progressive the world has become.


Why should the keep it inside their own rooms?

Because if an impressionable child see's any kind of "homosexual dynamics" they will assume that this is normal and then become gay themselves - did you not read the other posts?

Corkfeen

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

Erm... If this is supposedly guaranteed, there is something severely wrong with the way children are being raised....

cowzerp wrote: »

I was not saying that was the reason why they should not have kids, it is weird and unnatural that's why.

Planes, cars, antibiotics and nuclear families are rather unnatural. The latter is a social construct and not necessarily even ideal, apparently members of such a family will definitely bully children with gay parents as a result so it sort of reflects badly on the concept (based on your earlier point).... But you know silly arguments on what is and isn't natural are idiotic, most things in everyday life aren't natural.

heaven forbid children be taught that bullying is wrong instead

Pushtrak

Poisonous mushrooms are natural, that doesn't mean its good or I'd recommend eating them. Natural disasters are what? Natural is not an indicator of good or desirable.

NuMarvel

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

What's odd in this thread, is the amount of hand-wringing, pearl clutching "somebody think of the CHILDREN!!" types who are all talk and no action. If people were genuinely that concerned about the welfare of children with the potential for being bullied, they'd be doing something about the bullieS and not the bullieD.

I'd suggest that eliminating the notion that having same-sex parents is odd would be a good place to start. After all, if the people who are "grown ups" don't think it's odd, it certainly reduces the chances that their children will think it's odd as well.

Another suggestion would be leaving this "leave it in the bedroom" malarkey far behind us. Maybe your relationships are based on purely sexual activities, but many couples, gay or hetero, develop long term relationships based on trust, love, companionship and all that other good stuff as well as sex. If you can't accept that gay couples are capable of these kinds of relationships, then you are being "anti-gay", even if you don't realise it.

Annasopra

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

I'm not racist but I just make racist statements

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cowzerp wrote: »

Ridonculous

These people are meant to have babies and are capable of it, Gay people are physically incapable of having babys together so can't be grouped the same as Black people!

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied, all people can be bullied but this greatly increases the chances.

I'm not anti gay-i really don't care what people do inside there own rooms but to say having gay parents is not odd is just wrong.

You are homophobic though.

Seachmall

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm not racist but I just make racist statements

As a point of interest, mango salsa is also weird and unnatural.

Pushtrak

How about the naysayers try something? Take a look at this and try to make a case about harms in these countries due to the permissibility of same sex marriage.

The Netherlands
Belgium
Spain
Canada
South Africa
Norway
Sweden
Portugal
Iceland
Argentina
Nepal

Annasopra

Seachmall wrote: »

As a point of interest, mango salsa is also weird and unnatural.

Meh - lots of things are weird and unnatural

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about the naysayers try something? Take a look at this and try to make a case about harms in these countries due to the permissibility of same sex marriage.

For one thing, we're talking about gay adoption, not gay marraige.

For another, which country and which harms, specifically, specifically would like me to comment on?

Incidently, wiki lists 14 countries it's legal in, you have 10. Can I assume you think the other four (one of which I live in) are perfect?

CreepingDeath

Sonics2k wrote: »

I can tell you first hand, that is completely wrong.

It's a myth that has been disproven time and time again.

Seachmall wrote: »

This one [PDF] I posted earlier was funded by The University of Cambridge for example.

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?

blatantrereg wrote: »

hm 286 "no"s, including eleven gay people. oh well. No point arguing with people who think things like that. It's a bit like explaining that global warming is not a myth, or that the holocaust really did happen.

You're dismissing 30% of the people who don't agree with you on this thread and comparing them to conspiracy nuts?
Typical gay reaction, labelling others as bigots, small minded or Neanderthal because they don't share your views.

The reasons why most don't speak out and express their views is that the LBGT side here gang up on individuals, back slap each other with thanks and report posts they don't like to get people banned.

I'll tell you what, how about the biological parents or their nearest relatives (if any) have to give explicit consent to allow gays to adopt their child.
So there'd be a sort of "opt in" check box when giving up a child for adoption?

NuMarvel

Seachmall wrote: »

As a point of interest, mango salsa is also weird and unnatural.

So is orange chocolate. Doesn't stop my niece from loving it though.

Wait, does this mean I get to bully her because of it? Awesome!!! Better yet, I can't be blamed, because clearly SHE'S the odd, weird and unnatural one.

CreepingDeath

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah, so you're an idiot. Fair enough.

Directly attacking cowzerp ?

The LBGT gang have been more than willing to report posts in the past to silence others who don't agree with them.
I think that post should be reported.

cowzerp

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah, so you're an idiot. Fair enough.

I suppose you also believe that single parents should have their child taken away? Maybe father's should have a child taken away, after all it's hardly 'natural'.

How about sterile couples? I'm guessing they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. It's obviously unnatural.

So, what it basically comes down to is this. You're a bigot, have no real understanding and a totally misinformed view, and are scared of what you don't know. Therefore it's weird and unnatural.

Out of curiosity, do you take painkillers after a bout in the ring? Because those are totally natural, right?

Single parents just happens, it's best to have a couple but again it is natural for a woman to have a child even if the fella leaves/dies for example

I'm not a bigot just because i have an opinion you don't like!

i never did take pain killers after a fight but would if i needed too, would have no bearing on kids though if i did.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'd suggest you stop using your PC, any technology, medicine may have to go. You might have to go live with the Amish.

Again using pc's is not the same as same sex people bringing up a child.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You are homophobic though.

i really am not!
just because i don't think they should be able to adopt does not make me homophobic.


PC Brigade is out in force!! keep it up.

OldNotWIse

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?



You're dismissing 30% of the people who don't agree with you on this thread and comparing them to conspiracy nuts?
Typical gay reaction, labelling others as bigots, small minded or Neanderthal because they don't share your views. "Wish to dictate to you how you should live your life"

The reasons why most don't speak out and express their views is that the LBGT side here gang up on individuals, back slap each other with thanks and report posts they don't like to get people banned.

I'll tell you what, how about the biological parents or their nearest relatives (if any) have to give explicit consent to allow gays to adopt their child.
So there'd be a sort of "opt in" check box when giving up a child for adoption?

Sorted that little editorial issue you were having m'dear

Pushtrak

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

For one thing, we're talking about gay adoption, not gay marraige.

It is relevant. Take a look at the situation now as I posted it earlier:

Unmarried couples may not jointly adopt a child.

Under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Authority considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare.

So, it has a bearing on this.

Incidently, wiki lists 14 countries it's legal in, you have 10. Can I assume you think the other four (one of which I live in) are perfect?

Is this going to be some anecdotal tripe? But by all means, present it.

nozzferrahhtoo

cowzerp wrote: »

the difference is a child of gay couple is guaranteed to get bullied

Not how it works. Bullies are cowards who pick targets based on how easy they are to bully, how vulnerable they are, and the likelihood of them fighting back. Gay parents will not "guarantee" any such thing.

Take:

1) a guy who is big, plays sport well, is good looking and outgoing.... but has gay parents.
2) a guy who is small, no good at sport, average looking and introverted.... but has two parents one of each sex.

If you really think "1" is "guaranteed" to be bullied or is even more likely to be bullied than "2" then you simply know nothing about the psychology of bullying or the dynamics of their target choices.

A bully has one criteria only: The ease of getting away with the bullying. If the target chosen happens to have gay parents then so much better for the bully... but if not then said bully will find something, anything, else to work with.... and if that fails the bully will simply make something up.

cowzerp

NuMarvel wrote: »

So is orange chocolate. Doesn't stop my niece from loving it though.

Wait, does this mean I get to bully her because of it? Awesome!!! Better yet, I can't be blamed, because clearly SHE'S the odd, weird and unnatural one.

i never said anyone should be bullied, i hate bullies and nobody deserves to be bullied, does not mean it wont happen but again that is not really the issue.

I simply think if 2 men choose to get together they do so knowing that they can't have children, there choice, and it is not the same as a woman who can't have babies.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?

I presented one that was 23 studies in several different countries between 1978 and 2000. Large scale enough for you?

You're dismissing 30% of the people who don't agree with you on this thread and comparing them to conspiracy nuts?
Typical gay reaction, labelling others as bigots, small minded or Neanderthal because they don't share your views.

You can hardly call someone small-minded when, as I said, your own views are based on little more than moral outrage and without a shred of research or eveidence.

OldNotWIse

cowzerp wrote: »

Single parents just happens, it's best to have a couple but again it is natural for a woman to have a child even if the fella leaves/dies for example

I'm not a bigot just because i have an opinion you don't like!

i never did take pain killers after a fight but would if i needed too, would have no bearing on kids though if i did.



Again using pc's is not the same as same sex people bringing up a child.



i really am not!
just because i don't think they should be able to adopt does not make me homophobic.


PC Brigade is out in force!! keep it up.

PC brigade? that oul' line. I certainly never subscribed to that, I just dont like when people take it upon themselves to tell others how to live their lives.

Just because I dont think black people or Jews or members of the travelling community should not adopt does not make me racist...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pushtrak wrote: »

It is relevant. Take a look at the situation now as I posted it earlier:

So, it has a bearing on this.

Is this going to be some anecdotal tripe? But by all means, present it.

I don't know - I'm waiting for you to pick a country and a "harm in [said country] due to the permissibility of same sex marriage caused by gay marraige" as you put it.

Pushtrak

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't know - I'm waiting for you to pick a country and a problem caused by gay marraige.

You are obviously misreading my posts. I'm actually trying to argue the opposite of what you presume. A challenge to the naysayers for adoption, by bringing up countries that have gay marriage. These societies haven't collapsed or have major issues. If you think I was arguing that there has, then you misread what I've been saying.

BizzyC

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'll tell you what, how about the biological parents or their nearest relatives (if any) have to give explicit consent to allow gays to adopt their child.
So there'd be a sort of "opt in" check box when giving up a child for adoption?

So the people who have deemed themselves to be incapable or unwilling to care for a child should have a say in who can? I'm sorry but no. If they really want to make sure the child isn't raised by gay people, they should raise the child themselves.

Bottom line is that a child with loving parents to care for them will be better off than a child with no parents at all. The gender and sexual orientation of the parents should be of secondary concern.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pushtrak wrote: »

You are obviously misreading my posts. I'm actually trying to argue the opposite of what you presume. A challenge to the naysayers for adoption, by bringing up countries that have gay marriage. These societies haven't collapsed or have major issues. If you think I was arguing that there has, then you misread what I've been saying.

Ah, so I was. Please disregard (it did sound a bit odd!)

APologies!

Seachmall

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

Correct.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students,

Suggesting that is relevant is whatever the opposite of argument from authority is.

Their methodology is published and reviewed, that's what should be addressed.

and were has it been published ?

Child Development, November/December 2004, Volume 75, Number 6

They've also published in Developmental Psychology and Journal of Family Psychology and been cited in many others.

OldNotWIse

It's interesting to see all the "protect the children/protect the nuclear family unit/protect the sanctity of the catholic family whose sole funtion is to go forth and procreate" banners being waved here...when you consider the amount of lives destroyed through the systematic rape and abuse (and coverup thereof) that has gone on in this country. Yes our "morals" and our willingness to be dictated to by a higher power have clearly served our children very well. How many of the "save the children from the gays" brigade lose sleep thinking about the rape and violation of yesterdays children in this cesspit of a country?

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It is still more than you presented. Also 12,105 students randomly selected over 80 schools is not "small scale". Especially not when compared to your own unsubstantiated opinion of 1. Plus it was not even the largest study... by quite a margin... to have been linked to on this thread.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.

Titles are not important. The Peer review process is important. Anyone, with or without title, can submit a paper for peer review so long as it is written well and contains evidence. Even you could submit one, or at least you could if you started working with evidence and not opinion and anecdote.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?

Says the guy who claimed he was not going to bother reading it. You seem to have a lot to say about something you did not bother to read. In fact HAD you read it you would see the very top of the first page says where it was published, and when.

OldNotWIse

BizzyC wrote: »

So the people who have deemed themselves to be incapable or unwilling to care for a child should have a say in who can? I'm sorry but no. If they really want to make sure the child isn't raised by gay people, they should raise the child themselves.

Bottom line is that a child with loving parents to care for them will be better off than a child with no parents at all. The gender and sexual orientation of the parents should be of secondary concern.

Exactly. You either give your child up for adoption or you dont. There can be no strings attached. That can of worms would lead to people specifying they only want their child brought up the elite with aperfect medical history and good credit rating...

Coeurdepirate

Gary4279 wrote: »

Valid point, but I think that greater emphasis should be put on adoption to straight couple that can't have children for medical reasons.

There are virtually no adoptions in Ireland anymore, and I think its such a shame that a lot of kids end up in temporary homes.

I know most gay couple would try their hardest to care for a child but at the end of the day would it not be better to give a child the best start possible. I don't think that could be achieved with a gay couple.

I'd also like to point out that my argument isn't anti-gay, its pro-child.

Psychologists have found that children raised by gay parents show higher levels of psychological competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. Also, physical and sexual abuse towards children is much more common in opposite sex relationships.

Gary4279 wrote: »

Are you seriously going to tell me a child of a gay couple isn't going to get tormented in school Most people get bullied in school, some are unlucky to get bullied more than others. But a child of a gay couple is 100% sure to get tormented for his whole school life.

Yeah, I had that in but it was too long, you get the idea stop looking for a reason to piss yourself.

There are twins with gay moms in 3rd year in my school, in rural Connemara. They don't get bullied at all.

cowzerp wrote: »

Single parents just happens, it's best to have a couple but again it is natural for a woman to have a child even if the fella leaves/dies for example

I'm not a bigot just because i have an opinion you don't like!

i never did take pain killers after a fight but would if i needed too, would have no bearing on kids though if i did.



Again using pc's is not the same as same sex people bringing up a child.



i really am not!
just because i don't think they should be able to adopt does not make me homophobic.


PC Brigade is out in force!! keep it up.

You believe that they do not deserve to have the same civil rights as you, which means you think they are inferior to you.
Yeah, you're not homophobic at all.

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Directly attacking cowzerp ?

The LBGT gang have been more than willing to report posts in the past to silence others who don't agree with them.
I think that post should be reported.

Then report it and let the mods decide if it needs to acted upon. Why waste the time typing a post to say you think a post should be reported, when it would be quicker for you to just press report and send a short message to the mods? Particularly when you're so busy at work...

cowzerp wrote: »

I simply think if 2 men choose to get together they do so knowing that they can't have children, there choice, and it is not the same as a woman who can't have babies.

If a hetero couple get married, and neither are capable of producing children naturally, does that mean they can't adopt either?

cowzerp

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

You believe that they do not deserve to have the same civil rights as you, which means you think they are inferior to you.
Yeah, you're not homophobic at all.

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

Seachmall

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation-if a woman was to go get her womb removed on purpose i would not feel she should be able to adopt either.

What about someone who married someone they knew was infertile?

Should they be allowed to adopt?

Pushtrak

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting:

1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :
Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."
Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."
Suggested a "less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework" for future studies in this area.

Sorry those who make appeals to naturalism, or similar rhetoric. The science denialism is no different than if you were to try to propose the earth is flat, for a young earth, or deny climate change.

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And the "proof" presented here consisted of small scale subjective questionnaire completed by teenagers in America.

It was written by "Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson", and note the lack of "Doctor" as a title in any of the authors.
It looks like an end of year student assignment by some college students, and were has it been published ?

Here are some more peer reviewed papers on the subject, courtesy of Oldrnwisr.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

You've also got people posting in this thread who were raised by gay couples, and are telling you outright that growing up was no different to that of a child raised by a gay couple.

Your opinion is actually being proven wrong, but it's stubbornness, and possibly a lifetime of misguiding propaganda that is stopping you from seeing the truth.

smash

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all, they choose to not have kids by there lifestyle choice or sexual orientation

Actually that's not the case at all. Your attitude and people like yours is to deny them the choice.

aidan24326

BizzyC wrote: »

Bottom line is that a child with loving parents to care for them will be better off than a child with no parents at all. The gender and sexual orientation of the parents should be of secondary concern.

Very true. And the idea that you 'need' a mother figure is not backed up by any evidence. Many a child was raised by a widowed father without any ill-effects.

Equally many a psycho murderer, dictator and despot had two parents of the opposite sex so clearly being raised by a mother AND a father is no guarantee of anything. Ultimately what matters is that the child has two loving parents who instill the right values and teach that child to be respectful, polite, humane etc That can surely be achieved by a gay couple just as easily as by a straight couple, considering many an opposite-sex couple make useless parents and some are entirely unfit for the job.

CreepingDeath

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Directly attacking cowzerp ?

The LBGT gang have been more than willing to report posts in the past to silence others who don't agree with them.
I think that post should be reported.

Is that so? Who has been telling you which posters reported which posts?