Showdown in the Peach State.
@ almost 2 years ago
Downtown, Atlanta, GA
Conservative Christians vs Gay Rights supporters. With a ton of political power on the line.
@ almost 2 years ago
South Downtown, Atlanta, GA
The state legislature has passed a 'Freedom of Religion' bill. It's currently sitting on the governor's desk waiting to be signed into law.
A lot of businesses and organizations have made it clear that they'll reduce their presence in the state should he sign the bill.
It's quite the Mexican standoff.
My phone has been blowing up with automated calls from both sides of the fight asking for calls to the governor's office to support their position.
finally christians in georgia wont be persecuted anymore.
@ almost 2 years ago
that's like the Nazis passing a bill prohibiting Jews from purchasing fire retardant clothing
Norcross, GA 30071, USA
I've never been a political activist...but I may look for a secular group to join to contribute to combating this rampant religious absurdity within my government.
Gwinnett Village, GA, USA
Freedom From Religion...or something similar.
My current Representative is a former preacher. I actually used to attend his church a million years ago when the kids were younger and Mrs. Racer convinced me it would be good for them to go to church.
he's slightly right of Inexorable
Norcross, GA 30093, USA
It's an election year...
Georgia is fighting over Religious Freedom...
Tennessee and North Carolina are fighting over transgender issues...
Brookhaven, GA, USA
I'm expecting a visit from Angelus and/or Inexorable any time now
a whole lot of people fighting something that doesn't effect their lives at at, telling the people whose lives it is effecting that they are infringing on their freedoms...bass akwards
@ almost 2 years ago
Iowa City, IA, USA
@ almost 2 years ago
Strongsville, OH, USA
It's Civil Rights all over again.
A majority group furious over laws preventing their blatant discrimination of a minority group.
Sandy Springs, GA, USA
yes pink the effect of my penis size is affecting your throat. got it.
I don't understand how that doesn't make both of us homos
I took a look at the link, and I don't see any specifics of the bill mentioned. Is this a copy of the freedom of religious act?
@ almost 2 years ago
Shoreview, MN, USA
and what difference can we really make
Winder, GA 30680, USA
@ almost 2 years ago
People say Deal will veto the legislation, most likely because all of the businesses that are threatening to pull out. Disney wont be the only film company to pull out of a billion dollar industry for Georgia.
the question is what will the legislature do about it because that's where the problem came from.
ive repeatedly said this is what they do, they keep testing these regressive laws they move through all the republican states one at a time, im sure mississippi will be next.
I got in a discussing with a friend yesterday about this.
his position was that the "Gay Mafia" was extorting the governor by threatening to have the entertainment industry boycott our state
he said Georgia gays were willing to "cut off their nose to spite their face"
@ almost 2 years ago
Torrance, CA, USA
In all seriousness though businesses and churches shouldn't be sued just because they won't service same sex couples. Because at the end of the day there are tons of businesses and churches that service same sex couples.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA
And by focusing on that one church or business that doesn't support same sex marriage and suing them doesn't do any good, it just adds more unnecessary drama.
an article by shaun king (aka joshua arroyo), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-n-passes-anti-lgbt-bill-country-article-1.2576194
@ almost 2 years ago
all this just because Obama's ideals evolved
North Olmsted, OH, USA
you truly love the man, don't you?
Cerritos, CA, USA
no I love you
cd you are missing the larger issue with that. Churches are not the same as private businesses, first of all. Apples and oranges. Private businesses that serve the public should not be able to so discriminate as a matter of public policy.
@ almost 2 years ago
Lakeland, MN, USA
More importantly businesses restrict commerce when they refuse to do business with you because you're Latino or black or gay or whatever. Congress can regulate that. Pernicious discrimination against classes of people should be prohibited.
It might seem like we should just leave some of these little things alone, why the drama etc. I get that. But here is the problem: if Joe's Wedding Cakes can discriminate, then John's Market next door might think hey, if they can do it, so can I.
Would they be wrong? No, of course not. At what point will you decide it's worth the drama? When people are forced to move because they can't get products and services to live? Again, I don't think we should tolerate it at all.
I would imagine that Jim Crow was somewhat the same, just far more ingrained and therefore acceptable to more people. It's not until attention was called to the injustice that it was really questioned. Allowing the same discrimination against gays
seems to be a huge move backward to me.
Drag those mouthbreathers into this century, kicking and screaming...My schadenfreude will know no bounds.
I agree completely doctor this is America. But I would have to speak to a Native American to verify
Thank you for yet another compliment PLC, that is a perfect article but the compliment goes over the top, i could not write a news piece so well. this talent is all his.
you know this is off topic and completely unrelated but mainstream republicans always say donald trump doesnt represent their party even though so many are voting for him, you are one who strikes me as may not vote
for him but he represents 100% of the things you represent. maybe some differences but perhaps biases keep me from seeing them. Though i believe he is closer to you than any other candidate ever has been, which has been
enough justification for you in the past to support a candidate, im really curious about this. this isnt a slander its just how you strike me.
I thought this was how he strikes you...
Summerville, GA 30747, USA
nice one racer.
I took that test for him, judging by his responses here and BS'ing the rest ... 91% Donald trump.
87% Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson! When is that schmo gonna give it up.
98% Bernie. And 97% Hillary. 81% Gary Johnson lol.
I'd have never guessed that for you doc.
@ almost 2 years ago
Spotsylvania Courthouse, VA 22553, USA
Yes it's what I expected, strictly from a positional standpoint. The questionnaire didn't ask anything about the rest of the "stuff" surrounding a candidate, like racist remarks or email abuse, that completely affect the actual vote.
those things dont actually matter and its impossible to ask people in a survey if theyre racist. even klan members check no.
so im not a fan of hillary but im starting to question just why they hate her so much, there is literally nothing she did for them to hate her so much playing middle of the road the entire time.
a while ago, before he died and is now sucking unclean ####s in hell, jerry fallwell said that if hillary clinton ran for president and if satan came out of hell and ran against her christians would vote for satan.
literally no excuse for that kind of hatred besides the rampant hypocrisy from the right.
I agree WV. Maybe H2O can shed some light on the basis for the HRC hate.
PLC likes authoritarianism. Trump support is a given.
i dont think they have the ability to justify it.
some people say things like benghazi but thats recent, and was viewed by the lens that already existed before, if they didnt already hate her they wouldnt see anything nefarious there. there is a deeper level that i dont
think they can justify anymore, its been so long, original first lady tenure? maybe, but healthcare reform seems so tame now, its a programming i think, the same kind that led to the rise of donald trump.
a hatred without any other justification than you were told to.
i work with a guy who owns a 7-11, he wants to kill obama literally because he has to pay $40 per month total for the 16 employees as part of the affordable care act penalty for employers.
increases in welfare benefits, about his employees that are on welfare because theyre single mothers and he pays tehm $10 per hour.
i told him to really stick it to obama and pay them just enough to get them off welfare.
I think a lot of hate for Hillary comes from her actions during the watergate investigation. Or that she turned her back on her conservative republican roots. Or maybe it's because she is a shrill, corporate sell out.
srorriM & ekomS
@ almost 2 years ago
It might also be her ever changing positions to whatever is politically expedient during any given election cycle. Some might just dislike power-hungry establishment shills from Chicago who go to school in Massachusetts
And Connecticut and then live in Arkansas and Washington to become senator of NY....because that makes ####ing sense
And yet she's better than every gop candidate...
she is a very bad liar. lying is to be expected, she is a politician after all, but trying to sympathize with working people is pathetic.
President Not Sure
@ almost 2 years ago
Florissant, MO, USA
I have to say It's vote for Trump before I'd vote for Cruz. Cruz is scary. Are we really up for some Christian sharia law?
Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN
Agree that Hillary takes the politically expedient position...she always has. I guess you could say she is consistent in that sense! Grasping at straws here.
Bernie is still in it though. One more scandal from Hillary - if it comes soon enough - and he could be nominated. Bernie vs. Trump is Bernie ftw.
88% Cruz, 84% Trump, 81% Kasich, 77% Johnson, 30% Clinton, 25% Sanders
No surprises there.
Tucker, GA 30084, USA
Georgia Governor vetoes discriminatory bill
At the end of a gun.
@Evil - 147 FBI agents involved in the e-mail "security audit". Nothing to see here, move along.
@PLC - No gun involved. Just forced acceptance.
I dont believe it though, I think you gamed it to pick cruz by a smaller margin. tell me why you are not voting for trump.
You don't believe me? OMG! How will I ever live with myself?
it doesnt really matter, though it would be important to explain to you that the governor of georgia was never going to sign the law, even before companies threatened, he only waited so long
for the session to end so they couldnt override his veto. nathan deal is a corporate shill, not a jesus shill.
this is why i refered to racer's previous assessment of democrat vs republican a while ago (democrats get their feelings hurt, republians lose money/freedom)
its completely reversed.
these religious freedom bills are like the targeted abortion bills or voting restrictions, they get tried in one state and then based on their success go through every other red state.
so you weigh the issue on its face, some christians will have their feelings hurt, other people will lose actual rights/money.
and it surprises me you dont understand that plc, your shallow intelligence and complete lack of factual support in your arguments had always seemed secular to me.
Hows Drayvon doing? Is he talking yet?
victory, as always, is ####ing delicious.
Awesome. Does that mean he's ok?
hes great! a little #### though.
I can imagine. Just like his mom.
please please plc, I already accepted your terms of surrender, I am your based god now.
Your life must be pretty pathetic. You see surrender where there is no war. Was this a debate? Was there a point of contention? What did I miss?
as always my proud latin friend, you missed everything
you entered a conversation on which you knew nothing about and made a pithy response per your MO. i think explained why you were wrong, and why everything you think related to this subject is wrong.
Either I missed everything or you have a vivid imagination. My money is on the latter.
i then reference your pattern of being wrong and the reputation it has given you. you proceed to do your dildo waving routine where you try to reference personal information about us, wrong on purpose, as if you have the
English please. Type in english. Or calm down.
upper hand. i imagine with a #### eating grin because you think it makes you smarter, funnier, or just not as retarded as even the other republicans think you are.
you are the new inexorable, but at least inexorable didnt run away when he got beaten badly, he still kept fighting, as if it mattered at all.
dildo waving routine? Yup. Your imagination has gotten the best of you again.
at no point did you suggest i was wrong or why. you didnt touch the topic after that. you resorted to what you *think* works. so while i eat this wonton soup you can bow to your based god.
if i wanted to continue with that internet reference i would say "then i #### your bitches" but you dont have any bitches, because they all left you for the same severe personality flaws everyone else recognizes in you.
You got issues. Its funny though. Watching you wage these imaginary wars claiming your imaginary victories. A man with an empty life must fill it with anything he can find. I guess you found how to address your sad life.
thats just how i do
Do I say congrats? Im not really sure how to address something that isnt real.
Oh. youre on a rant again. Sorry. I didnt mean to interrupt. Please continue. (let me know when you're done)
Are you done celebrating your imaginary victory?
i will let the voters decide if i just shredded your #### beyond recognition from anyone but the homeless guys you let plow it on friday nights. meanwhile, this wanton soup is delicious.
Ok. Enjoy. Keep your head up. Life gets better. If you ever need to talk, reach out. I'm dead serious. Let me know.
the most reasonable guy on this app!
Bishop, CA 93514, USA
Sheepdog's a guy??!
ahh memory lane
not since the surgery.
Did you know that I have never had surgery in my life? Not one.
North Royalton, OH, USA
It was a "Chemical Castration"
Athens, GA, USA
but generally chemicals wear off and you're back to normal and conversely when Viagra wears off God damnit you're back to normal
Except for that whole 4 hour thing
Interesting read. http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change
"Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from same-sex parenting have critical design flaws."
"Violence between same-sex partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."
This explains a lot about josh
"Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage."
not a biased source at all. do you miss inexorable?
Biased? Please explain.
In today's day and age anything and everyone can be considered biased
It's too easy to attack the source when you don't agree with the content.
seriously PLC. ACPeds was founded specifically because it disagreed with the AAP's position on same sec marriage.
it's position statement is backed with highly cherry picked references that fit with belief of the founders.
highly biased, indeed.
Burnsville, MN, USA
Science generally starts with data and then reaches a conclusion.
These specific pediatricians did the opposite, ie cherry picking.
The AAP technical paper on the issue
The merchants of doubt are at it again. It's a travesty that political posturing can be passed off as some sort of legitimate science.
"Over thirty years of research..."
Because you could easily find open, same sex couples raising their children without any extraordinary discrimination affecting their lives for the past 30 years.
Paul outta Hemet
@ almost 2 years ago
Reno, NV, USA
interesting point Paul, throw that research in the garbage. I know a gay guy raised by a single mother and he came out great even though she's a flaming liberal spouting the most ridiculous well you know what I'm talking about
but take me for instance my dad was barely in my life my big brother didn't care about me. the only time you caught me playing ball was in bed but because of my mom I came out okay
she got me alone.
when I was young you had to steal a penthouse to see a půssy what am I talking about they didn't even show pussy but they were better than Playboy
"Biased? please explain"
Do you do any research of the source of your information before running with it?
now 8 year old at their fingertips anything they want. this is a grand social experiment on the children of the planet.
The American College of Pediatricians is a right wing group that was founded on...and openly admits to...their opposition to homosexuality.
yeah...they're a little bit biased
The roughly 200 members of the ACP split from the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 when the AAP issued a position statement supporting same sex adoption.
They chose the name American College of Pediatricians in hopes that the more gullible among us would confuse them with an actual medical group that bases their research on scientific principles.
Obviously it worked on you.
f*** yeah now it gets exciting someone just got F'd in the A.
what if for some strange reason the child finds homosexuality to be unnatural? the kids at school pick on them and they can see their point that could make a really screwed-up kid. how about religion?
some religious people like God or more likely insist God heal their child so obviously you can't discriminate on religion . I guess they'd sneak something in there on the questionnaire
there are studies of children growing in violent atmospheres becoming brain ill. can a black couple adopt a child when it is known that their child will be attending one of those violent underfunded schools they speak of?
I see attacks on the source but none on the report. Are you saying that because you disagree with them, they are wrong? Dont answer that. Thats your M.O.
are some children because of race or appearance less desirable as adoptees so they are given to parents with the lowest score? Honey Boo Boo's or the Urkel types? do they sit there waiting like the elongated nippled "overbred dog" my wife fell in
The AAP paper is full of PC and distortions. But since you have a PC view yourself, you wont acknowledge that.
at the doggie adoption center!!! Jesus Christ! The guy says yes she's neutered or spade or whatever they do to dogs and I said "she just gave birth"!
"in hopes that the more gullible among us would confuse them with an actual medical group" Are they Pediatricians? Are they Doctors? If not, what are they? Tow truck drivers?
maybe inexorable never existed and hes been plc this entire time...
why does everybody change their name or go undefined? Who the f*** is who?
I know a woman who frequently left her gay nephew to watch her child and that child turned out gay. gay causes lots of trouble as a matter fact it we were all gay we would cease to exist
unless of course and this would be cool,we force the lesbian man-haters to receive our gooey semen injected into they're most sacred place to procreate whether they liked it or not.
that's where we'd be heading , that's where we would be if "everybody did it" so as a heterosexuals we are preventing that most invasive thing that would inevitably happen to women..thimk about it
@PLC - you stopped my quote a little short.
ACP would be proud of your cherry picking information in an effort to manipulate it into suggesting it says something that it doesn't.
Pendergrass, GA 30567, USA
Would you care to quote what I actually said?
He would not, sir
Does it make a difference? Use the whole quote. My point still stands.
Clearly it does make a difference. Otherwise, why would you be arguing against a misrepresentation of my point rather than my actual point?
Tucker, GA, USA
Would you care to quote my entire sentence? Or would you prefer to continue thrashing that Strawman?
Like I just said. Even with the whole sentence the point stands.
Is this a group of doctors?
Have they based their research on scientific principles?
The answer to both is yes.
so...you're too intimidated to quote my entire comment?
Stone Mountain, GA 30083, USA
So I have to actually copy and paste it on a post for you to be satisfied? I've already said twice you can use the whole sentence. I have to actually post it to make you happy?
Because as you know, your happiness and satisfaction is a high priority of mine.
No, you don't have to post my quote in its entirety for me to be happy.
You have to post it in order for it to be accurate. Accurate representation of your opposition's position is important to you, isn't it?
"They chose the name American College of Pediatricians in hopes that the more gullible among us would confuse them with an actual medical group that bases their research on scientific principles."
They don't base their research on scientific principles. Scientific principles require researchers to objectively evaluate the available data and form a conclusion.
Instead, the ACP base their research on what they feel best supports their predetermined and admitted biased position. That's the opposite of using scientific principles to objectively guide your research.
Let's examine the link you've provided from the ACP...shall we?
The ACP's conclusion is that "There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle."
...however, the data they've used to reach this conclusion is irrelevant, misleading, and manipulated to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Their argument regarding children needing a mother and a father is based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising of children. It is irrelevant to same sex couples.
The fact that they're same sex COUPLES (i.e. 2 people) refutes the data regarding children raised by single parents.
The inclusion of this data is misleading to the ACP report.
Thats not entirely true. You say "Their argument regarding children needing a mother and a father is based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising of children."
"While single parenthood, adoption, and remarriage are each loving responses to failure of the natural family, children reared in these settings face unique challenges." Adoption and remarriage also involves 2 people
"Children within step families can experience difficulties forging a relationship with the stepparent, and be faced with a sense of divided loyalties." 2 people
"Every adopted child must come to terms with a sense of rejection from her biologic parents and a longing to know her roots." 2 people (generally)
What studies did the ACP article reference for the conclusion they reached regarding this point?
The references are noted. You'll have to look for yourself.
"Their argument regarding children needing a mother and a father is based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising of children." is still a false statement. Even if you want to skip past it.
Don't mind if I do.
2. Heuveline, Patrick, et.al. “Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries,” Population and Development Review 29, no.1 (March 2003) p. 48.
Shifting Childrearing to Single Mothers: Results from 17 Western Countries
This particular study identifies the problems associated with properly defining the terminology used in family studies.
"Different family forms are often confused in public rhetoric and sometimes even by those researchers who use marriage as a proxy for a nuclear household or nonmarriage as a proxy for single parenthood."
The study admits that studies suggesting children fare better in 2 parent households "are largely related to the economic disadvantages faced by single and divorced mothers".
Again, these studies regarding single parent households are irrelevant to same sex COUPLES.
The ACP article also uses data that has been intentionally manipulated to lead to incorrect results from authors with proven biases.
"25. Mark Regnerus, How Different are the Adult Children of Parents who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study 41 Social Science Research 752 (2012)"
The data in the referenced study has been showed to be misclassified.
You went from note 2 to 25. Im so glad youre not cherry picking!
I'm making my point.
"...however, the data they've used to reach this conclusion is irrelevant, misleading, and manipulated to reach a predetermined conclusion."
I've already covered irrelevant (and also misleading).
Now I'm moving on to manipulated (and misleading).
Try to keep up, won't you?
"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples"
"the peer-review system failed because of “both ideology and inattention” on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage)"
The article you've posted and quoted is published by ACP, a self-admitted biased organization. When the bias was mentioned, you questioned how they are biased.
I've detailed their bias. They readily admit to it.
Youve covered irrelevant by skipping over references that completely contradict your false statement. Great job hero! When you close your eyes really really tight, you can imagine what you wish.
You then suggested that rather than pointing out the obvious bias of the authors of the report, any opposition should focus on its content.
I did so.
You missed these points that can be found in the references. "Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents"
Step parents = 2 parents
The article has been shown to have used irrelevant, misleading, and manipulated data in an effort to reach a predetermined conclusion by a self-admitted biased organization with an obvious political agenda.
"Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development"
biological parents. Get it?
""Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents"
Unless you're arguing that single parents shouldn't be allowed to marry...
...I fail to see the relevance of this point.
you would. It contradicts your statements made here. So you must fail to see it.
Ill keep it simple for you. Are same sex parents considered a stepparent parental situation or a biological parental situation?
your question has fundamental flaws
A homosexual parent can be either a biological or step parent.
The definitions and associated classification is relevant to our discussion.
Also, is a reference to the well being of children raised in a step parent situation a direct contradiction to your now debunked allegation that only single parent situations were referenced?
same sex parents are step parent situations. No way around it. One may be biological but both cant. Can Not. If one isnt a biological parent, its a step parent situation.
it actually reinforces my point.
The study deals with the quantity of parents in the household...not sexual orientation of the parents.
That wasnt your statement. Your statement said it only compared single parent situations. Should I quote you?
The studies deal with the well being of children in the varying home structures. 2 biological parents being the ideal situation.
As you read further youll see that there are other factors that make same sex parent situations among the worst for children.
The benefit would be twofold:
1. My comments are awesome, and everyone benefits from them being continuously reposted.
2. It should clear up your misconceptions that I could possibly be wrong.
Dude, you really need to learn how to scroll up. It aint that difficult.
"Their argument regarding children needing a mother and a father is based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising of children."
based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent
"based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent"
This is a Christian group making a statement. this is not science. this statement has not been peer reviewed. this was an opinion paper, and they are free to have their opinion.
You'll want to read my ENTIRE statement again.
Then ponder on its significance. Then decide whether its factually accurate. Then comment again.
Take your time.
There's no rush. Don't feel compelled to compete with the speed at which I reveal the glaring flaws in your position.
they don't come right out and state that this is an opinion piece, but they imply it in the conclusion.
@UndrWater - oh.
It's an opinion piece?
Well...we all know that opinions can't be wrong. So...
"Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on same-sex parenting, whether by adoption..."
"...foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."
Maybe that's their working hypothesis, but they haven't done the science yet.
PLC, since you've tipped your hand, how long have you been a Christian? And why does this issue bother you more than God's top 10?
Racer. You're wrong. Accept it and move on. Youll one day be a better man for it.
Underwater, how long have you been a homosexual parent?
I apologize for calling you out. Does this issue bother you more than God's top ten?
Par for the course.
Given the issue related to adoption has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the parents, this group's position on that matter is against adoption all together and not same sex adoption only. Unless their position isn't based on the research.
Gardnerville, NV 89410, USA
The 2 vs 1 parent argument is irrelevant...homosexual couples have 2 people.
The gays are bad for children argument is based off of manipulated data.
But it isn't a 2 vs 1 parent argument. I've shown you that when they reference the issues associated with stepparent situations. The best situation is a biological one where both biological parents are present.
In addition, the family structure is only one part of the equation. Same sex parent situations face other issues that negatively impact the children.
Looked at with the rational glasses on, not the PC glasses, it's easy to see that children raised in same sex parent families are worse off than children raised by 2 biological parents.
Biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, single parents, same sex parents. The order from best to worst situations for the children.
that's not necessarily true
where did you derive this sequence?
Monroe, GA 30655, USA
that sounds suspiciously like a declaration
Walton County, GA
That's what I derived from the information I've read. Feel free to disagree. I'm ok with you having your own take on things. Ain't AMERICA great?
If you want to label it a declaration, do it. Again, I don't care. That's your defense mechanism when you see something you disagree with. Since you're incapable of changing minds. I'll never understand why you even try.
Is it science or opinion?
@PLC - you keep on mentioning PC.
Do you honestly believe that a "PC lens" is how the AAP reached their conclusion?
That order of best to worst situation for kids is not based on any rational assessment of facts.
I honestly believe that PC played a part in the decision making. Honestly.
You dont agree with my order? Pardon me while I go find my shocked face.
so even given that one parent households struggle with financial security and the median income for gay couples is higher than the national average, you still believe they are worse of with 2 gay parents than one straight one?
so the negatives of sexual identity trump the negatives of instability? what factor in the gay couples family structure makes them the worst?
john galt is back, h20 is back and inexorable is back!
Don, did you read the reports?
@plc - can you please describe how children are harmed by being raised by homosexuals?
Conyers, GA 30094, USA
Read the report. This time read the uncomfortable references that you ignored yesterday. You'll find some interesting #### in there
can you please describe how children are harmed by being raised by homosexuals?
perhaps we should also discuss or be prepared for the pending riots promised by some black lives matters leaders if Donald Trump is elected
so you can't describe how children are harmed by being raised by homosexuals?
Gwinnett Place, GA, USA
So you can't ####ing read? It's in English.
The report explains the different factors that impact children in the various family settings. It makes some valid points that will be ignored by you. Sad. Try it. Give it a good honest read. without cherry picking.
I've read the report. Unfortunately, I've also researched the cited references.
Dacula, GA 30019, USA
I recommend you do the same.
Can you articulate in your own words why you feel that being raised by homosexuals is harmful to children?
How, precisely, are the children harmed?
Read the report. This time read the uncomfortable references that you ignored yesterday. You'll find some interesting #### in there.
We can discuss the particulars if you'll tell me your specific opposition to children being raised by homosexuals.
You cant say youve read it and stand by your statement "Their argument regarding children needing a mother and a father is based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising of children."
I've read the report.
Would you care to discuss it?
Your strawman argument ("based off of data that solely addresses the issue of single-parent raising")is invalid. Admit that and move on.
...or were you expecting to just throw it out there and quote it, without any necessity that it be defended...despite the fact that it cites references that are demonstrably inaccurate?
muy statement is accurate. the report claims that children need a mother and a father. it cites studies detailing children raised by both biological parents vs single parent vs step parents.
That data is irrelevant to 2 homosexual parents.
What "valid points" does the ACP article make?
Would you care to discuss them?
Proof that you didnt read it. Thanks.
Are you opposed to children being raised by step parents?
Do you think it should be illegal for step parents to raise children?
Bethlehem, GA 30620, USA
SPLC? Really? And youre complaining about a biased source? OMG!
you can't articulate the reasoning behind your position?
only blindly cite a report that has been proven to be inaccurate?
LOL. Feel free to ignore anything I say as you make your petulant demands. Its never worked before. Why would you think it would work now? Seriously. You should read the report. Even if you disagree with some of it.
You cant honestly say its 100% wrong. Well, you can say that. But that would just show your ignorance and your complete lack of reason. You see what you want to see. Not necessarily whats there.
I started to write something. Then I remembered that Puckered Lips for Cócks doesn't respect facts and has no intellectual honesty. So why bother. Let the troll be.
children of same-sex marriages need to have thick skin we all know that. on the other hand some might benefit so it probably balances out
I could have handled two moms my dad didn't teach me s*** and mom was easy to get money from let alone gullible as can be
I definitely think a child raised by gays has a much stronger chance of being gay themselves . some are born that way while others may choose or be swayed by their parent's example
Children of interracial marriage need to have thick skin, too. They are martyrs to their parents abnormal life choice. If there was any argument against legally recognizing interracial marriage, it is the poor children.
children of fat moms too but interracial children get to hear both sides so they're probably less fearful of racism because their white parent told them the Democrats are lying so don't be so afraid of whites
Take a look at the other ACPeds issues on their page.
my favorite is abstinence
no self-respecting scientific analysis would come to that conclusion.
This entire organization does nothing other than provide cover for socially conservative pediatricians with cherry picked BS.
In the meantime, they found a sucker in PLC.
and your personal opinions don't have anything to do with your assessment. LOL! We know it does. Therefore, anything and everything they say will be disregarded by you and yours. That's great.
Do children prefer their mothers or their fathers? We can find some studies that show one and some that show the other. Which ones are "correct"? most will side with the ones that match their personal beliefs.
abstinence only has been tried and fails miserably in practice.
continued advocacy for it in lieu of comprehensive sex ed is irresponsible
just like their position on same sex marriage, they started with their socially conservative position and sought evidence in support.
PT Barnum would be proud
just trying to stick a square peg in your round hole
The ACP reminds me very much of Kent Hovind. They push inaccurate information on a gullible population in an effort to promote their agenda.
The problem, with them both, is they actually try to effect policy with their disinformation. The ACP regularly reaches out to schools with their unsolicited reports in an effort to sway education policy (sex education).
Their efforts are even more abhorrent in light of the fact that they often file amicus briefs with courts in an effort to sway legal proceedings.
Lord forbid different perspectives to exist. The "My way or the highway" mentality is so ............... you.
The problem isn't different perspectives.
The problem is when one perspective uses intentionally manipulated data to steer public policy.
Public policy decisions shouldn't be based on deception.
The ACP produces demonstrably non-factual reports, that are cited in efforts to sway public policy.
SPLC? Funny. Please dont ever ever complain about a biased source again.
"It's too easy to attack the source when you don't agree with the content."
"I see attacks on the source but none on the report. Are you saying that because you disagree with them, they are wrong?"
Is there something specific on the SPLC article with which you disagree?
Would you care to discuss it?
SPLC is as biased as they come. Stop being a hypocrite.
Whatever. The ideal family situation is a biological mom and a biological dad. That's hard to argue against.
why is that ideal?
what, specifically, qualify it as ideal?
is anything less acceptable?
There are many reasons for that being the ideal. Would you disagree? Why? What factors guided that opinion?
Less is acceptable but still not ideal. Single parent, step parent, adoptive parent situations are a reality of life. Less than ideal but unavoidable.
Can you elaborate on a few of the reasons it's ideal?
So you disagree?
so, you're incapable of articulating your position.
too nuanced for you?
I am quite capable. Are you capable of answering a simple question?
Do you disagree with my opinion that the ideal family situation consists of a biological mother and a biological father? If so, Why? What family composition would make the ideal? In your eyes, of course.
We can discuss my position after discerning the rationale you utilized to develop your declaration.
We can? Oh thank you soooo much! How generous of you! ####outtahere!
Let me know when you're willing to give up the interview and engage in a conversation.
"to develop your declaration" LMMFPRAO!!! How ####ing idiotic and ####ing immature of you. Youre an idiot. Point blank. Nothing more and there is nothing less.
I'm attempting to have a conversation. you're making claims and refusing to discuss them.
those are commonly referred to as declarations
No you're not. You're trying to be the normal #### your always are. You're trying to interrogate me. To disagree with anything I say. My answer to you is a clear "#### you dick". Let that be clear.
I'm trying to get you to discuss your claims. its called having a discussion
LOL! Go interview somebody else.
And once again you've failed.
If you consider my opinions declarations, so be it. Says more about you than it says about me. Insecure little bitch that you are.
You obviously came from a broken home.
I feel bad for your family whenever you have kids.
so, you don't want to discuss your claims?
You like to try to keep people on the defensive. That's your style. There's no conversation with you. And it's pathetic. I don't mind sharing my opinions on anything. I don't need to be interrogated over them.
If you want to engage in a conversation over them, fine. We can do that. Ask what you want and I'll answer. As long as you do the same. When you try to make it a war, I'm out. I'm not looking to "win" anything or change
anyone's mind. I like the color red. Your approval isn't required. Damn, I feel like I've said this before.
yes, but what makes the biological parents ideal for child well-being?
I'm to blame for you being defensive?
Im not looking to discuss my opinions with a person who doesnt wish to discuss his. Opinion. Not claim. Opinion. Subjective/objective. What I feel is a "better" situation. Feel. Better. Subjective.
Youre to blame for you being a dick.
and a pussy. at the same time
so...your inability to discuss your opinion makes me genitalia?
No. YOUR inability to discuss make you genitalia.
I'm attempting to discuss your comments.
You're adamantly refusing to do so.
No youre not. Youre attempting to investigate my comments. In an effort to discredit them. Instead of discussing the topic.
hows that working out for ya?
everyone clearly sees that you cannot support your comments
Awesome. Thanks for playing. Im sorry I wasnt able to garner your approval today. Im sorry that you werent able to make me see things right. Better luck next time.
Im really bummed that my opinions didnt get your seal of approval. What will I ever do with myself?
Is that like, everyone everyone? Like everyone in the whole wide world? Or is it everyone youve spoken to? Or everyone on VM? Who is this "everyone" that you speak of? I asked a co worker. You didnt ask him?
every sentient being in the multiverse is aware of your inadequacies
They have full knowledge that you cannot explain what makes biological parents ideal for raising children.
LOL! You get more and more pathetic with each post.
Sucks that you dont even have the balls to put your opinion out to the multiverse. They all already know the coward that you are. They told me. In a group text.
They said "who the #### does this idiot think he is?" I told them that I wondered the same.
I'm far too timid to voice my opinion...I wish I was as masculine as you, plc.
Can you teach me your secret of being so vocal that everyone knows exactly what you mean with absolutely no ambiguity?
Life will teach you most of it. I can't. I'm good, but I'm not a magician.
then, how'd you pull that gerbil out of your åss?
Gerbil? What? That wasnt MY ass dummy. That was your mothers ass. Remember? The time she was blowing you and she asked you to put it in her ass and you did. Then you couldnt get it out. How could you forget?
You know how you inbred georgia bumkins do. We all know. Even the multiverse.
This is why you'll never learn how to be a man. Not even the multiverse can help you. You're proof that a broken home results in broken toys.
(FYI dummy, you can type ass.)
No, I can't. I'm far too prude to type such crude language.
You're not smart enough to be a prude.
i had a big long bit to type out, a recreation of david lettermans top 10 lists, it was great, it would be a lot of things plc has never said in his life, consisting of things like
"after reviewing the source material i see the fatal flaw in my logic i apologize." "your honor i believe i am capable of weekend visitation rights." and "i apologize for wasting everyones time."
and it was going to end with #1 being "i dont believe i can fit that much #### in my mouth." it was going to be hillarious and plc would get enraged and try to flood it off the screen with garbage posts.
but now i gotta go to work, have fun ladies.
Confusius say " Mexican who go to work at 7pm is a ####ing illegal immigrant"
I don't think Confucius said that.
Can you please provide your source?
its in the ACP report. You should read it. It's in one of the references.
Just as I suspected more bullshït referenced by those idiots.
Let's not get crazy. You ain't reading that to save your life. Lord forbid you look at anything outside of your narrow minded views.
I didn't realize those guys covered illegal immigration too! Where do they find the time to do all that medical research?
I'm sure your dumb ass didn't read it either. For the same reasons.
But Confucius is in there. As is immigration and enabling child abuse. A topic you're familiar with .
there are more kids that need to be adopted than there are families (functional or otherwise) to adopt them. these fake research reports don't matter unless these groups can manufacture "acceptable" parents out of thin air.
there's a reason orphanages don't exist anymore, but foster care is just a small improvement over an orphanage.
my personal challenge to Christian families: adopt them ALL.
But then they wouldn't be hypocrites.
Even the gay Christian families? Even though we all know that's not the ideal situation? Why do you idiots hate the children? I think (hope) that you fools will think differently when you have your own children.
Unless you're as bad a parent as Lorie.
this whole thing is just sad.
Children with same sex parents? I agree. Horribly sad.
You've yet to articulate what makes the biological parents ideally suited to raise children.
Until you do that, the conversation cannot develop further.
Lawrenceville, GA 30045, USA
I personally think that the ideal situation for raising children is dependent upon the support, education, support, and LOVE they are given...regardless of the quantity of guardians.
Quality of parental involvement is far more significant than quantity.
A devoted single parent (hetero or homosexual) could potentially provide a better environment for raising a child than a couple (biological, step, or foster) who disregard the child.
@plc - there's no need for you to be so smug about the fact that you're an amazing family man. Just because your wife and children are completely devoted to you is no reason for you to rub other people's noses in it.
Yes, your relationship with your family is clearly the model after which all child upbringing should be modeled, but not everybody is capable of providing the stable environment and devoted, unconditional love that you did.
I just hope that I can be half the father and husband that you've been...that my wife and kids will have the same inseparable bond that you share with yours.
I would say you're a lucky man, but that would completely devalue the years of selfless sacrifice and commitment you've striven towards ensuring that your family has the most ideal structure possible.
It must make you very proud for your wife and kids to know that you've always been there for them.
we should use your personal story of how to raise a family...and look back with zero regrets
since you clearly don't mind delving into people's personal experiences with child rearing...can you give us some pointers from your own personal experience on how to properly raise children to their full potential?
Snellville, GA, USA
someday I hope to have children of my own (god willing)...and could use the advice of someone who obviously has it all figured out.
A single gay parent who doesn't abuse his child would be better for a child than hetero biological parents who beat and abuse the child. That's a given. Nobody here has said anything differently. Not that I know of.
I thought gay parents were detrimental to raising children?
Stone Mountain, GA 30087, USA
now, you're agreeing with my assessment...even to the point of admitting that a single (bad) gay (the worst) parent could provide a better environment than the biological (ideal) parents of a child?
how very nuanced of you
Gay parents are not as ideal as 2 biological parents but its better than abusive parents of any makeup. Ive never said anything different. I stated what I thought would be the ideal situation.
2 loving biological parents are better than 2 loving same sex parents.
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
foster care is not better. The point is moot so long as kids are in "the system". stability is better than instability. get these kids into stable families...no matter what they look like.
the ACP can also make the policy issue moot by adopting ALL of the children into stable typical households.
How many kids have you adopted?
I think the only real problem that those adopted kids would have with gay parents would be the other kids at school
I've adopted two.
that's irrelevant though. policy intended to keep "non-ideal" families from adopting will keep children in the foster care system. not sure anyone can argue that that's more ideal.
keep more children in the foster care system. it's funny that no one wants big government until they do.
pastors could tell their congregations "skip your tithes, adopt a child". bad for business, I suppose.
you have two gay parents living at your house? just kidding! Wait a minute, did you just come out of the closet? which I'm totally cool with! As I've always said
The foster system is broken. It's almost as bad as same sex couples adopting.
You've lost your mind.
Good answer! Good answer! Please tell me what to think oh great one. All of us with our own opinions crave your wisdom. How we've managed to live our lives without it is a miracle. A miracle, I tell you!
do you agree, PLC? The point is moot?
pink, which closet are we talking about?
I'm thinking the one my daughter just came out of!
Was she in there with a black guy?
water is black?
I'll accept your silence as agreement.
Southwood Riviera, Torrance, CA 90505
god created marriage between a man and a woman.
@ over 1 year ago
god told me to run for president.
god told me not to tow a sanders supporter
It's in the bible!
@ over 1 year ago
what a waste of time learning the views of one ass hole
@ over 1 year ago
oh let it go, ted cruz finally dropped out and you got your guy!
I'm beginning to think he can beat Hillary even though he doesn't know #### about ####
North Royalton, OH 44133, USA
youre an idiot and even youre smarter than that. what you should be worried about is your senator.
just to clarify I was calling the tow truck driver an ass hole
the tow truck driver isnt going against hillary, i was directly responding to this "I'm beginning to think he can beat Hillary even though he doesn't know #### about ####"
i thought that remark was a response to my ted cruz reply which a sarcastic response to you calling the tow truck driver an #### because ted cruz did say god told him to run, which was one of the other things i said.
which was meant to broaden the fact you are just calling one guy an #### when theyre all ####s.
broaden the fact :-)