you people keep asking for empirical evidence that gay marriage/adoption is harmful. my point is, it hasn’t been tested long enough for there to be much proof. after several generations, evidence would undoubtedly show that kids raised by homosexuals (especially boys raised by two women) would be more prone to depression, crime, alcohol and drug use, etc. there’s just no doubt that a boy needs a male influence. a boy raised by two women will have difficulty.don’t play dumb
I am asking you for what do you want proof?
the case was a joke. don’t come on here and defend gay marriage on the basis of a show trial presided over by a homosexual activist judge. no serious person cares about that.This thread is about the case. If you are not interested in sticking to the topic, please find another thread before you get this one closed.
Which has historically come in all sorts of forms, even same sex marriages among the Ancient Romans as an exmple. Again the basis for the notion of “traditional” marriage as the only legitimate form has no basis in fact. The only ones changing anything are Prop 8 supporters. After all, the supporters did actually VOTE to discriminate, correct?wrong. the burden of proof is upon those who would change the most fundamental and long-lasting institution in human history.
And you have not shown that children raided by same sex couples are harmed in any way. What is the rational basis for the discrimination?don’t need data. i know from my own experience that children benefit from having both a mother and a father. i don’t need a scientific study to know that.
that’s just speculation based on prejudice at this point. This is not very good in law. Besides, with 100% (or so) of the ALL the druggies, criminals, and so forth being presently born to heteros and raised by heteros for the past 1000+ years, you could hardly hold this against the tiny minority of gays who might like to raise a child. Which, by the way, as already legal for them.you people keep asking for empirical evidence that gay marriage/adoption is harmful. my point is, it hasn’t been tested long enough for there to be much proof. after several generations, evidence would undoubtedly show that kids raised by homosexuals (especially boys raised by two women) would be more prone to depression, crime, alcohol and drug use, etc. there’s just no doubt that a boy needs a male influence. a boy raised by two women will have difficulty.
answer my question. should an adoption agency be able to discriminate in favor of hetero couples?What admission? All I said was that dual-parent households, in general, tend to be stable and functional, as far is that goes. What’s the big deal? No one disagrees with this. No one wants to deny heteros the ability to marry and make children, either.
the rational basis is that men and women are different. everybody knows that to be true. but gay marriage proponents such as you deny the obvious.Which has historically come in all sorts of forms, even same sex marriages among the Ancient Romans as an exmple. Again the basis for the notion of “traditional” marriage as the only legitimate form has no basis in fact. The only ones changing anything are Prop 8 supporters. After all, the supporters did actually VOTE to discriminate, correct?
And you have not shown that children raided by same sex couples are harmed in any way. What is the rational basis for the discrimination?
I also take this as an admission that you do not need evidence for any of your claims and will make further naked assertions in the future. My suspicions have been proven correct, sadly.
Then go away from this thread. You are no here to discuss the case in a serious, honest way.the case was a joke. don’t come on here and defend gay marriage on the basis of a show trial presided over by a homosexual activist judge. no serious person cares about that.
no, there is tons of empirical evidence showing that boys raised without dads are far more likely to get in trouble in all sorts of ways. again, everybody intuitively and by experience knows this to be true, but your agenda keeps you from acknowledging the obvious.that’s just speculation based on prejudice at this point. This is not very good in law. Besides, with 100% (or so) of the ALL the druggies, criminals, and so forth being presently born to heteros and raised by heteros for the past 1000+ years, you could hardly hold this against the tiny minority of gays who might like to raise a child. Which, by the way, as already legal for them.
LOL.Captainmike is obviously not here to discuss this in a sincere or respectful manner.
I am done with him here.
you go away. the case was fixed from the outset.Then go away from this thread. You are no here to discuss the case in a serious, honest way.
Wishful thinking here. Totally unprovable. How do you get from same sex child rearing to all those horrible things?you people keep asking for empirical evidence that gay marriage/adoption is harmful. my point is, it hasn’t been tested long enough for there to be much proof. after several generations, evidence would undoubtedly show that kids raised by homosexuals (especially boys raised by two women) would be more prone to depression, crime, alcohol and drug use, etc. there’s just no doubt that a boy needs a male influence. a boy raised by two women will have difficulty.
plenty of empirical evidence that a boy needs a dad.Wishful thinking here. Totally unprovable. How do you get from same sex child rearing to all those horrible things?
So which is it? has it not been tested long enough, or will it lead to substance abuse, depression, etc? Can’t have it both ways.
I already pointed out that “different” is not the same as “better”. Explicitly state how this is “better”the rational basis is that men and women are different. everybody knows that to be true. but gay marriage proponents such as you deny the obvious.
Where?plenty of empirical evidence that a boy needs a dad.
very little evidence in favor of gay marriage/adoption, because it has existed for less than 1/10th of one percent of human history.
i can have it both ways.
a kid benefits from a masculine influence. he also benefits from a feminine influence. both are invaluable.I already pointed out that “different” is not the same as “better”. Explicitly state how this is “better”
i made my point. crystal clear to any reasonable person. no need to repeat it.Where?
so either there is little evidence for or against or there is. which is it?
Thank you, for being so honest – I’ve been waiting to see this admission. At least now people can see that for you, this debate isn’t about evidence (as you “couldn’t care less what evidence was presented” in court). Please continue with your smears.i couldn’t care less what evidence was presented in the court case, the gay judge knew how he was going to rule before it even started. the whole thing was a farce.
Gender roles are social constructs. The fact that people can fit either is proof of this.a kid benefits from a masculine influence. he also benefits from a feminine influence. both are invaluable.
No you have not. What are the specific benefits of learning gender roles as you understand them?i made my point. crystal clear to any reasonable person. no need to repeat it.