Using the Olympics to push the Gay Agenda.

[Dog Wonder]

Good for them. I support this.

Closet Communisss!

 

[southwind]

Closet Communisss!

Finally! You admit what we've known all along!

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Good for them. I support this.

 
Why on Earth would you support this when there are already not enough loving homes for all the parentless and under parented children in the world?

 

[Ms Tree]

Why on Earth would you support this when there are already not enough loving homes for all the parentless and under parented children in the world?

Because most of the zealots dont care about the children, just the blind devotion to hatred. Never mind that children are being deprived of a loving house hold. So long as their predjudices are satisfied, phuck the kids.

Pathetic.

 

[Ms Tree]

I am sure you meant deviants and not loving parents. 
 
You meant deviants right?
 
I am sure you are for diaper snipers adopting children to right?
 
Sad.

I dare you to walk up to Brett Jones and tell him that he is a deviant.  Do me a favor and let me know if you ever do.  I want to be there when he turns you into a blood stain on the floor.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Because most of the zealots dont care about the children, just the blind devotion to hatred.

 

I want to be there when he turns you into a blood stain on the floor.

You were saying?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
Why on Earth would you support this when there are already not enough loving homes for all the parentless and under parented children in the world?

That is a fair question.
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]1. Most children in foster care are not there because they are orphaned. Most children are there because they came from a bad home situation and had to be removed by the state for the safety of the child. Most of them have psychological trauma that will take years of therapy to correct if ever. The last thing a traumatized child needs is to be stuck in a home that encourages an abnormal sexual relationship. The child has enough problems without being exposed to that. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]2. Gay adoption is nothing more than an attempt by gay activist to try and present homosexual relationships as normal as possible to the general community. They think if the public sees their sick version of the nuclear family they will become more accepting of the concept of gay marriage.  I am sure many gay people support gay adoption not so much because they want children but to support "the cause".[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]3. Most parents want to pass their values and ethics onto their children. I think the reason most people are against gay families adopting children is because they do not want to put a child in a situation where he is "encouraged" to accept gay relationships as normalcy and possibly even "discouraged" from seeking a heterosexual relationship. [/SIZE]
 
 
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]What you're asking is for the public to be OK with putting a young impressionable mind into a situation of perversion.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]What you're asking is for the government to provide you what nature never intended you to have.[/SIZE]
 
 
 
 
 
I answered your question, now how about answering one of mine?
 
You say you do not understand why people do not support gay adoptions because of there not being enough loving homes for all the parentless and under parented children in the world?
 
Fine.
 
Let's talk about how our libtard government rewards irresponsible single women (as per your under parented comment) for having multiple children they cannot afford at the taxpayers' expense.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The last thing a traumatized child needs is to be stuck in a home that encourages an abnormal sexual relationship

I am sure you researched this and can show us all the data to back up your claim.

There are studies that have shown the opposite.

"The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the worlds largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:
An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I am sure you researched this and can show us all the data to back up your claim.

There are studies that have shown the opposite.

"The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the worlds largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:
An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial10.html
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/
 
We can trade studies all day long to support our opposing arguments.
 
If your going to post something like that try to use something a little more neutral than thinkprogress.org an obviously left leaning website.
 
I have stated before I do not put much faith in studies because they are usually accepted by the public at face value and the outcome of the study is usually rigged to produce a "favorable" result, usually to push a political agenda.
 
I think we can both agree the left and the right present "studies" as truth that were designed to produce a specific result before the study even began.
 
Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Think progress did not do the study. It was conducted by Melbourne University and reported by various news outlets.

If the study was reported on Fox News would it then be acceptable?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Think progress did not do the study. It was conducted by Melbourne University and reported by various news outlets.

If the study was reported on Fox News would it then be acceptable?

I know they did not do the study. The study was done by Dr. Simon Crouch at Melbourne University in Australia.
 
I read the article.
 
If the study was reported on Fox News I would still not accept it.
 
I already made my reasons very clear.
 
Do you make a habit of accepting these "studies" as truth?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Then why did you bother to put this comment in your post:

If your going to post something like that try to use something a little more neutral than thinkprogress.org an obviously left leaning website.
 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Then why did you bother to put this comment in your post:

Because I believe that using a liberal media outlet to argue your point to a person that you know has a conservative outlook was a bad strategy.  I would not have accepted it either way however, it would have been smarter on your part to post it from a more conservative or neutral site.

 

[Dog Wonder]

I would not have accepted it either way however, it would have been smarter on your part to post it from a more conservative or neutral site.

What difference does it make what the source is if you deny the findings?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

What difference does it make what the source is if you deny the findings?

I explained that very clearly.
 
Are you trying to make yourself look stupid or is it just natural?